Global Warming

[B. Max]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_Dav...kly11080005.asp

Suzuki is a great scientist. 

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_Dav...d_Suzuki/CV.asp

Susuki can add liar to his resume.

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/suzuki.htm

What leftists trot out as science to prove global warming is nothing more than a collection of chicken little stories based on little else but junkscience, misleading information and outright lies.

The socalled scientists who claim global warming, base their theories on faulty computer models. Models which they can't even make match the historical temperature records, but use to predict the future. Whenever you heard them using the word model, that is what they are refering to.

[Cartman]

What leftists trot out as science to prove global warming is nothing more than a collection of chicken little stories based on little else but junkscience, misleading information and outright lies.

Ouch, a damn hook in my mouth!

I wonder why they never actually quoted Suzuki directly?

But hey, maybe you are right. Remember all that fear mongering he did about BSE? As if it would be a problem in North America. Ha! What an idiot!

Here is how it works. You see, scientists have an agenda. They have nothing to study about the universe because everything is known whereas corporations have no agenda because they already make money so why would they want more?! Scientists will do anything to make a point. They want to eliminate freedom and happiness. No American University like the University of Chicago, the University of California Berkeley and the University of Utah would ever hire him!

[The Oatmeal Savage]

Let's see, we have three graphs, the first one is kinda squiggly up and down and represents the earths temperature over the last thousand years.

The second one looks pretty much like the first one and represents the suns output over the last thousand years.

The third one looks like a hockey stick with the blade pointing up and it represents the atmosperic CO2 over the last thousand years.

What conclusions could we draw from these three graphs?

[Guest eureka]

Lomborg is not even a member of the Danish Academy. He is not well enough thought of in Denmark, by his peers, for that.

That is a part of of the reason for his fraudulent claims: getting back at a scientific community that does not recognise charlatans.

[willy]

Did you notice that Susuki has a research and political organization?

I guess the chanllenge is to figure our if the research drives the political agenda or if the political agenda drives the research.

[Big Blue Machine]

Aren't we talking about global warming, not some guy?

[Pateris]

Interesting how when the skeptics about anthropogenic global warming brings stuff up it's decried that it's all funded by the oil companies and that the deniers haven't got the guts to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Even more interesting how the "environmentalists" ignore the data and the peer-reviewed papers that don't support their view.

How about Nature last year regretfully informing us that the method used by the key global warming authors (the hockey stick) that was propounded as evidence of global warming was "fraudulent". Remember that the IPCC report leaned heavily on this data... without that data, the whole thing looks pretty iffy.

[Guest eureka]

You might elaborate on who wrote the article for Nature and whether that was peer reviewed.

I have not yet seen any complaint that the "skeptics" do not publish. They do publish and their works are not peer reviewed in the main. You may have missed my earlier post where I pointed to the wealth of published pieces by the "skeptics." They get publicity far out of proportion with their numbers. Their numbers are small but their backers are wealthy.

Also, there is the laudable but unfortunate attempt by the media to give both sides equal play. Thus, a handful of skeptics and paid instruments of the energy industry (chiefly) are given equal time and exposure to the great mass of scientific institutions and governments the world over.

The simple fact remaons - one which overrides all the amateurs trying to decipher the reality - that Global Warming is with us and the extremes of climate and weather that are forecast are well under way. Just about every reputable, and honest, scientist in the disciplines that are involved tells us it is so.

Your throwing out the odd remark about Ph and the absorbent capacity of the oceans is simply laughable in the face of this. That is why I will not even consider arguing the science. Those who do know and understand say it is so.

Give me a break about the "hockey stick." That is a crude chart shoing the time relationship to chamge and it is not fraudulent at all. The author of the claim that it is fraudulent is the fraud.

Do you really think that an article by an individual in Nature is more authoritative than the IPCC. The IPCC leaned on all the evidence available from around the world and on all the scientific information available not on one chart. As has every other body and government that has studied the problem, including the American government and its scientists.

There have been several conferences of scientists since the genius who wrote for Nature passed his judgement. Each one sounds the alarm and points to worse conditions and more immediate needs than was even suspected.

There is not one scientific body in this world that now does not believe.

[August1991]

I heard a story about Suzuki, and apparently it's true. He had enrolled in an economics course at university. On the first day of classes the lecturer was going on about a business economic equation and so Suzuki asked how the impact on the environment was factored into the equation. The instructor said it wasn't. Suzuki resigned from the course the same day, stating that the course was absurd.

How moronic and what a tragedy for all of us that this is the mentality our future business leaders are learning.

That's why business schools are BS and need to be put out to pasture.

I have heard that quote too, MS.

I happen to think Suzuki is a smart guy but the anecdote strikes me as possibly true. Is it? (I hope not.)

In fact, economic theory has the only sensible understanding of the environment. I am willing to say that economics offers the only way to ensure a proper environment for our offspring.

Let's be realistic.

The Suzukis of this world are pissing in the wind.

Suzukie an internationaly respected biologist (which would make him a little more qualified to talk about the biosphere). It's pretty obvious to me which one would have more crediblity on this issue.

Suzuki got his PhD researching fruit flies (I think). His Japanese look made him televisual in the 1970s. (If he had looked like Joe Clark, no one would know him now.)

The environment is primarily an economic problem. This misunderstanding has been a source of never-ending frustration to me.

For Canadian nationalists, the first good basic vulgarized book about this was written in 1968 by a Canadian. You can still buy Dales's book on Amazon.

(Dales applied the idea of the Englishman Coase, published in 1960. If these names mean nothing to you, then you really shouldn't talk about the environment - even if you have heard of Suzuki.)

(I am depressed that more English Canadians know about Suzuki than about Dales.)

[ndpnic]

The environment is not an economic problem!

Human GREED is the environments problem!!!!!!

[Pateris]

Eureka,

I did a detailed analysis of the IPCC reports, and found some really funny outcomes.

For instance, the IPCC report specifies CO2 emissions for each country over the next 100 years. It assumes some level of economic growth to reach these values.

If you back out what the per capita GDP of the country is in 2100, every country in Africa is wealthier than the United States... seems pretty far fetched to me.

The other thing about the IPCC is the failure to report the ERROR BARS.

In scientific assessments, there is always some error carried in the numbers. Proper scientific work carries these errors through (there is even a special branch of math for it). In the IPCC summaries, there is NO reference to the expected error in the final predictions of temperature changes.

If you dig into the underlying reports, you can find the error calculations, and something interesting comes out.

The error in the calculations that the scientists report is LARGER than the predicted change. In most scientific works this is a firm indication that your prediction isn't useful for much of anything. It is a very strong indication that too many assumptions have been made, and that too little is understood about the system being modelled.

I find it hilarious that we are thinking of halting economic growth in western countries (and sending money to Russia) on the basis of science with lots of error.

[Guest eureka]

That is rubbish. You need only read the summaries to learn of the qualifications.

Have you ever looked at the temperature charts for the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age periods, BTW. There is one that I recall looking at by one of the denying groups. It shows the medieval Warming as a gentle curve - like a Bell curve.

The range from the mid 19th. century is greater and steeper: more than doubling the rate of temperature increase. It starts at a lower temperature that the MW and reaches about the same level in half the time. It also shows an accelerating trend.

Try it and see the real junk science the deniers are foisting on you.

[B. Max]

When armed with the truth that come froms knowing the facts, there is nothing to fear. The fear mongers and alarmists who use scare tactics in stead of sound science to force their agendas do so because there is no science based in fact to back up their claims. Filling their pockets depends on the uninformed sheepeople who would bah with puppy dog eyes even at thought of the return of PET. Now that would be something to fear. Otherwise, there is nothing to fear but fear its self. As churchhill once said. Fortunately there are those who won't be led around by the nose or dance the tune of the ehco alarmists and enemies from without or within.

http://humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6212

[Pateris]

Eureka,

All depends which curve you look at. The curves based on tree rings do show a larger increase since the 19th century than during the Medieval Warm Period. However, the coral reef data shows the medieval warm period was warmer than we have today, and happened just about as fast (although there was no corresponding CO2 increase in the atmosphere).

Also, how do you explain that CO2 is about 3% of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 200 years doubled it to get there?

[Guest eureka]

Nonsense! Temperature is temperature and the data is gathered from many sources, not just from tree rings.

How do I explain that C02 is 3% of the Greenhouse effect. I don't and you will have to say what you mean by effect to have anyone explain it. Consider its effect on atmospheric water vapour to find more than 3%.

You should take a look at the very long term temperature and C02 charts. Not in the last 420,000 years has the temperature or C02 concentration been as high as it is now: likely not in the last 20 millon years.

Before that, it seems that there were higher temperatures with a correspondingly higher level of C02.

However, that is charted and I leave it to the "scientists" to explain how there is not a relationship.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

Without the atmosphere, the surface of the earth would be a deeply frozen wasteland, like the surface of the moon.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect is what makes this planet habitable. While the primary components of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) have minimal heat holding capability (because they are atomic or diatomic), the small components in the atmosphere do the bulk of the "heat retention".

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. At 350 ppm it accounts for less than 3% of the total heat retention.

CH4 is a strong greenhouse gas, but is not stable in the atmosphere because it oxidises easily to CO2 and H2O

H2O is a moderately strong greenhouse gas. However, it's impact on the system is by far the largest, because the concentrations are so much higher.

For instance, even on a dry cold day, the content of water vapour in the atmosphere is HUNDREDS of times the content of CO2. On a hot humid day the content is TENS OF THOUSANDS of times the content of CO2.

This is why water vapour in the atmosphere accounts for well in excess of 90% of the greenhouse effect.

Therefore, changes in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere should have MINIMAL impact on the total heat holding capacity of the atmosphere.

Finally, recent studies on the HEAT REFLECTING impact of anthropogenic particulates in the air (mostly from coal and diesel engines) means less solar energy is reaching the surface. This will have a cooling effect on the planet... and those same IPCC sanctioned computer models show that this will counteract the added CO2...

[Big Blue Machine]

Whats so wrong about the Kyoto accord? It can't be that bad. If it doesn't work, we can always cancel it and go back to the normal way we do things.

[August1991]

Therefore, changes in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere should have MINIMAL impact on the total heat holding capacity of the atmosphere.

One could also say that adding 2% to the cargo of a boat won't matter either. Well, it depends if the boat is already fully loaded or not. And this, we don't know.

As you have pointed out, we do know that the greenhouse effect exists (and indeed is critical to our environment). And we also know that we are changing our environment in notable ways. We don't know if these changes are within the realm of stability, if I can use such a term.

Whats so wrong about the Kyoto accord?

It ignores China and India. It locks in Germany (including East Germany) and Eastern Europe (including Russia) at pre-1990 emission levels. Kyoto is more getting money out of American pockets than it is about the environment. I don't think any US Congress would ever agree to it.

In practical terms, the issue is so confusing that many people now simply use Kyoto as a litmus test of environmental awareness. That's sad.

[B. Max]

Whats so wrong about the Kyoto accord? It can't be that bad. If it doesn't work, we can always cancel it and go back to the normal way we do things.

Why would should we have to pay blackmail to a bunch despot run third world backwaters for our existance. There won't be any going back. Once business and the jobs leave they won't be coming back. Who's going set up a business in a country where failure is a certainy and the ones that already exist are moving out. That's the business side. The people without work and who have lost everything they've worked all their lives for, only to lose it to a bunch of traitorous nonsense won't be sitting around starving to death like a buunch of good little sheep.

[Guest eureka]

I have told you from the start that I will not argue the science of this: it would be an absurdity. Many thousands of pages are devoted to what you post in a couple of paragraphs. The vast majority of them tell the truth.

Your point about the countering of the effects of warming is not accurate. The IPCC submissions state that the increase of sulphate particles in the atmosphere would counter 30% of the warming effect.

Your simplistic statement about C02 accounting for 3% of the "Greenhouse" effect ignores everything that is known about the relationship.

I could bore you and the others with snippets of unconnected information that I have stored on my computer from hundreds of sites - I did a great deal of reading on this topic a couple of years ago - but I will not: I am not a scientist.

I do, however, have the good sense to be able to listen and read and accept the opinions and evidence of the vast majority of the world scientific community. The agreement of every government in the except for the leaders of a very few countries. You may know that the administration before Bush also accepted the validity of the case for warming.

[Guest eureka]

August, China and India are part of the Protocol. They are in the second tier of nations who will be legally committed to reductions at a later date.

It might be worth noting that China has taken significant steps without yet being committed to do so. The only important contributor to the problem that has not is the USA.

This is not at all about taking money from the US as the Clinton administration understood. That is the cry of the Bush clique. It is their own immediate bank accounts that they are thinking of.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

India, China, et al have NOT agreed to anything. They would need to sign a future post-Kyoto agreement and agree to reduce emissions at some point in the future.

This is unlikely.

Second, The kyoto accord as it stands, even if implemented successfully (a big if) will have a negligible effect on the composition of the atmosphere or climate in 100 years.

And the biggest if is whether some countries will be able to meet their requirements. Canada most surely will fail to meet our "commitment".

Finally, Kyoto as ratified may be considered some arcane "international law", but it has NO enforcement provision... If we fail to meet our commitments, can the rest of the world do anything about it? Nope

If carbon trading internationally is set up we may be asked to buy credits from a country that is already below it's commitments (say Russia). however this will not reduce emissions. This simply moves money around. Russia's current emissions are below 1990 levels only because the russia economy collapsed and thrust millions into abject poverty.

And I don't want to see our economy collapse under the weight of a "commitment" to a non-unanimous international protocol.

Canadians are NOT ready to accept a 30% energy consumption reduction by 2012. They won't pay for it.

[Guest eureka]

Why do you pretend to have knowledge of Kyoto and the IPCC? Or, if you do, then stick to the truth.

China and India are part of the Kyoto protocol and have ratified it as has almost every nation in the world.

The Kyoto agreement is not enough: that is agreed by all. To say, though, that it will have a neglible affect on the atmosphere disqualifies you from any commentary. It is too stupid a statement for words.

Kyoto has no enforceable penalty provisions. That is true. Neither does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many international agreements on all manner of things. That is very different from saying there is nothing that can be done about it. Obviously there is.

How many times have heard the excuse that the Russian economy collapsed and what a silly one it is. Take a look at the Russian data for yourself. The, you might consider that, if the alarums of the deniers were real, then the Russian economy would be placed in a straitjacket.

How credible is it to say that this just moves money around for the benefit of Russia? Can you, with a straight face, assert that the whole world entered into an agreement to transfer money from the US to Russia?

It is true that some countries will, or may not, meet their committments. That is because there are too many people like you who are determined to condemn their grandchildren to misery and poverty.

There are no countries that could not and many have done so already.

The United States had a committment and is the only major nation (25% of the total world emissions) that is not trying to meet its committment. When you say that nothing can be done, do you think the world will long tolerate the actions of a nation that is poisoning the planet while every other is working to detoxify it?

Someday, the s... is really going to hit the fan and spread over North America.

[Pateris]

Eureka,

I already have money riding on the fact that Canada will NOT meet it's Kyoto obligations.

And I am willing to bet that the world won't reduce energy consumption or switch to alternative sources until they are CHEAPER than the current sources.

And this is because I do not believe that the climate is going to change so much that it will negatively affect the majority of people's lives. Why?

Because we will spend more time and money ADAPTING to the changed climate than we will spend trying to change it back.

I also believe that if the anthropogenic effect you are claiming is happening is real, then we would need to build GIANT factories to REMOVE CO2 from the environment, or else it is ALREADY TOO LATE.

Adapt to the change. Don't try to turn back the clock, because you will fail.

And remember, the only VIABLE alternative to fossil fuels is NUCLEAR. Wanna go there?

[Guest eureka]

The difference in approach to this topic between you and I seems to be that I am not writing of what I believe or wish to believe.

I am accepting the overwhelming opinion of scientists and the fact that the whole world of government has been concerned enough to get together to take action. The world including the governments of those few nations that have reneged on their agreements for short term economic considerations.