Strange Weather

[ConservativeJoe]

Oops, forgot one.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[cybercoma]

Forget it eureka, there's no discussion with you.

Remember how I said overfishing was a problem for coral?

http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans/south...port_front.html

There's an article from Greenpeace on "pirate fishing" and how they're concerned about the Indian Ocean being overfished. How much coral death is the result of this?

In fact, how much can be attributed to all the other factors besides the ocean warming by 1C? Here's an article about reefwatch, which agrees with your statement that global warming causes bleaching and death -- something that I'm not going to argue because it's true; however, it devotes only one sentence to the ocean warming and the rest to all the other factors:

Despite their value, coral reefs through much of the globe have during the last few decades been increasingly effected by pollution and other forms of human impact. Corals have only a limited ability to clear themselves of sand or sediment. Increased amounts of sediment in coastal water, occurring as a result of coastal infill projects, dredging or upriver soil erosion, have killed much of the coral on some reefs in areas such as the Arabian Gulf and South-east Asia. Elsewhere corals have suffered from overgrowth of algae occurring as a result of increased levels of nutrients due to sewage pollution or excessive use in farming. In the Caribbean and Western Pacific there has in some recent years been extensive bleaching and death of corals believed due to increased ocean temperatures. Human activity may also have caused extensive destruction of corals by an indirect mechanism. In Australia and Japan there have during some recent periods been widespread population outbreaks of the Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) which feeds on coral tissue, while in the Western Indian Ocean and, in the past, in the Caribbean, high population densities of sea-urchins have damaged reef areas through the erosion caused by their scraping mouth-parts. There is increasing evidence that these population outbreaks may be partly the result of over-fishing of the predatory fish species, such as emperors (family Lethrinidae) and triggerfishes (family Balistidae), that feed on them.

Tell me, how much is global warming a factor in the deaths of the reefs? Enough that we should redistribute the wealth from North America and harm our standard of living by stifling industry through the Kyoto Protocol?

Global warming does exist but the impact it will have is largely unknown at this time. The predictions the computer models have made so far have been grossly exaggerated (as the IPCC admitted in a 1996 report). All this talk of catastrophy is nonsense and fear-mongering and it's quite sad that you believe in it without doing your homework.

[Guest eureka]

Joe! Crichton is a medical doctor expressing an unqualified opinion. Do you really care what he thinks?

Essenhigh is a Mechanical Engineer and an "expert" in converting coal into energy. Apart from his vested interest, does he have any credentials to claim that the world missed what he saw? Even Lomborg made no such claim although he had all the statistics in his piece of quackery.

Shackleton & Opdyke produced their paper in 1973. Apart from it not contradicting Climate change, is it really relevant compared to the thousands of studies conducted by the scientists of every major country since.

The Cato Institute is a "Think Tank" that is more accurately an apologist for large corporations. It has been called a "Libertarian" Institute and is funded by Banks, Media conglomerates andEnergy companies -Oil companies. Very credible is a piece from that Institute that expresses no science, only pious and optimistic hopes.

Natural and Anthropogenic emissions;

Some scientists among those who are convinced of climate change would say that anthropogenic sources are even less than 5%. There are times when some natural event throws as much of the nasty stuff into the atmosphere as are sent from anthropogenic sources. However, those are temporary and balance will be restored.

What we are doing is a permanent dislocation of the balance. 5% of emissions above the earth's restorative capacity all goes into the atmosphere.

However, it is all about balance. The extra produced by man has thrown that balance out. It has thus increased atmospheric CO2 dramatically: 25% in the last couple of decades alone. The earth cannot absorb the extra - or sequester it - and it is all going up into the once deep blue sky.

Further, man's activities are reducing the capacity of the earth to handle CO2.

It really should not be too difficult to understand. And there are still no scientific papers that actually contradict climate change and its causes and consequences.

[Guest eureka]

Cybercoma.

Don't you think you might be missing the point here? All those other factors, no matter how much damage they do to the reefs or fish stocks, do not alter the fact that the reefs will die with only a modest further increase in water temperature.

Anything else is something that should be dealt with under International Law: law that unfortunately does not have the ability to be enforced. It really will not matter about any of the other problems if we do not stop the warming since the reefs will be dead and gone.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma.

Don't you think you might be missing the point here? All those other factors, no matter how much damage they do to the reefs or fish stocks, do not alter the fact that the reefs will die with only a modest further increase in water temperature.

Anything else is something that should be dealt with under International Law: law that unfortunately does not have the ability to be enforced. It really will not matter about any of the other problems if we do not stop the warming since the reefs will be dead and gone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Warming may not even be the most destructive force behind the death of the coral reefs, that's the point. You're throwing your weight behind knee-jerk policy making and using fear as a tactic to do so.

You said there was simply no debate about global warming and although technically correct, you're being misleading. Scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the climate is warming, but that's where the agreements end. No one is sure what effect human activity has had on global warming, nor can they predict the weather for the future.

Secondary to all that is the fact that you simply cannot ignore information that doesn't fit into your idea of the way things are. Using coral reef as the example, there are SEVERAL factors affecting their viability and you made it very clear in your post that you're choosing to ignore them. That's not the way science works, I'm sorry.

So, if you want to push a personal or political agenda, don't try and use science as your scapegoat.

[err]

Warming may not even be the most destructive force behind the death of the coral reefs, that's the point.  You're throwing your weight behind knee-jerk policy making and using fear as a tactic to do so.

Not exactly knee-jerk policy making.... come on... Something like 99% of all scientists are in agreement on this one.... And fear saves a lot of lives....

No one is sure what effect human activity has had on global warming, nor can they predict the weather for the future.

Just 99% of the world's scientists... banding together in a communist plot to use some fiction to try to "wreck" the USA's economy....

So, if you want to push a personal or political agenda, don't try and use science as your scapegoat.

Scapegoat... you'd better look it up in a dictionary.... From what I've seen, the goal is to reduce global warming... I don't know how you could read other than that from Eureka's posts....

[cybercoma]

err, don't reply to me unless you're going to read my posts.

The only thing scientists agree on is that the greenhouse gases (which includes far more than just CO2) trap heat and that the earth is warming.

99% of scientists most certainly do not agree on the effects global warming will have on the planet. They can't predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now because the computer modelling so far has not worked, due to the (as of right now) incalculable amount of variables in the weather equation.

The other thing that is not in agreement is what the effects of human activity are on global warming. There are many different factors in climate change, human activity being one small piece out of all of them. Global temperature rose sharply between 1910 and 1940, then it stayed the same (some scientists say it fell a little, but let's say worse case scenario it stayed the same) then there was another sharp increased between 1970-present. Sure you can blame fossil fuels, CFCs and everything else on the increase after 1970, but it gets a little muddled when you try using that as the reasons for global warming in 1910.

Anyway, the point is you're wrong. 99% of scientists agree that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat, it's concentrations have risen and that the earth is warming. What they have not agreed on is whether we can even change the balance for better or worse with our activities, how much effect we're having on the climate through our activities compared to other natural occurances and what the long-term effects of global warming will be.

Until we know what we're dealing with government intervention is not necessary and should be used as a last resort.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

What they have not agreed on is whether we can even change the balance for better or worse with our activities, how much effect we're having on the climate through our activities compared to other natural occurances and what the long-term effects of global warming will be.

I think that it is a given that we can change things for the worse. It is the contention of many that we are doing so without even trying...just think of what we could do if we tried!

Until we know what we're dealing with government intervention is not necessary and should be used as a last resort.

The problem is, today's pollution leads to tomorrow's effects. Dumping dioxins and furans into steams, for example, (or even radioactive waste leaching into them) does not pose immediate threats nor symptoms. They are felt in the long term. Same goes for global warming. The only way to 'prove it' is to have tons of people die, and even then there will probably be debate as to exactly what the cause was. Take the coral reefs, for example. Should they all die off next year, you and eureka (and much of the scientific community) will probably be at odds over what the actual killer was. Was it Warming? Toxins and waste dumped untreated into the oceans?

Basically, you seem to be saying that being 'proactive' is not needed, while the only proof you will accept is the final result, which means it will be too late.

[Guest eureka]

I am not going to be drawn into an entirely irrelevant argument, CC. Your list of dangers to corals has nothing whatsover to do with Global Warming.

It is an unarguable fact that corals will die, globally, should water temperatures heat up another degree or two. It is unarguable that vast areas of corals have already died where the waters have passed the critical point.

[err]

The only thing scientists agree on is that the greenhouse gases (which includes far more than just CO2) trap heat and that the earth is warming.

CO2 is the major player. When you think of how many millions of barrels of oil per day that are being ignited... the majority of the mass of these 100s of millions of kilograms of oil is being converted into CO2.... That's an absolutely phenominal amount. I don't think there is any chemical that is emitted at even 1/10th of that mass.

99% of scientists most certainly do not agree on the effects global warming will have on the planet.  They can't predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now because the computer modelling so far has not worked, due to the (as of right now) incalculable amount of variables in the weather equation.

And they cannot exactly tell what will happen to the inside of a roast of beef when it is put into the oven at 350 degrees (F) for two hours. As with you argument, there are a lot of variables such as the ratio of mass to surface area, fat content, convection within the oven, etc.... However it is probably safe to assume that the meat will be somewhat cooked.... Similarly, it is safe to assume that the earth will be in trouble if the current trend is un-checked.

Anyway, the point is you're wrong.  99% of scientists agree that CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat, it's concentrations have risen and that the earth is warming.  What they have not agreed on is whether we can even change the balance for better or worse with our activities, how much effect we're having on the climate through our activities compared to other natural occurances and what the long-term effects of global warming will be.

This is similar to an argument about tobacco.... The chemicals released from the tobacco actually do some good... they help calm the nerves, etc... and while some scientists (certainly not all) think that smoking is bad for human consumption, we should wait and see... individually that is... Why stop smoking when there's no conclusive proof that it's doing more damage than good ????

Until we know what we're dealing with government intervention is not necessary and should be used as a last resort.

And quit smoking when the doctor tells you that you have cancer.....

[Guest eureka]

World temperatures did not stay the same or decrease between 1940 and 1975. They increased. Why was there a fear of a new Ice Age dawning around 1970? It was because of the increasing temperatures that were melting Icecaps then leading to the asusmption that the same process was under way that caused previous Ice Ages.

We know now that it is something more.

Interestingly, there was something of a cooling in some areas in the 90's: notably in the American mid-West and, I think, some parts of Canada.

That cooling was a consequence of the warming of the Oceans. Higher evaporation led to increased water vapour and denser and prolonged cloud cover in some areas. That cloud cover reduced the effect of the Sun and reduced the amount of radiated heat

[Canuck E Stan]

Better to consult Viking on kyoto

In fact, Dr. Tim Patterson, a professor of Geology at Carleton University in Ottawa, is quoted on the site saying: "If back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Dr. Timothy Ball, Canada's first climatology Ph.D states it even more forcefully. "The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification."

Leahey said numerous other climate scientists along with himself have watched in alarm as much of the world and its media "buy in 100 percent to the notion that man's emissions of CO2 was causing rapid global warming."

A worthwhile read.

[Guest eureka]

Take a look at the political and business affiliations of the members of the Friends of Science. Then try to find a scientific paper supporting their irresponsible statements.

Just for one claim that I can tell you is the purest nonsnese. The claim that the Greenland Ice Cap is getting colder is misinformation of the most reprehensible kind and the purveyor of it should be stripped of his Ph. D. There is science behind that cooling that is a consequence of warming and ice melt.

The nephew of mine I mentioned in one discussion as teaching at an America university was, before moving to the US, Chief Researcher at the Danish Lithosphere Centre and is a World acclaimed expert on that part of the Earth. As such, he participated and led expeditions to Greenland. His findings are not those of your "oily" Friends of Science.

He has also done research and written papers on the imminent death of coral reefs, BTW. That forms a Lithospheric area of concern.

Kyoto certainly was flawed but it was the best that could be done given the power of the opposition.

That is another falsehood of those Friends with whom science needs no enemies. All the media publicity is given to these attention seeking poseurs. It is given because they have the financial backing from those business interests that care only about their bonuses. Media tallies show that these criminals have received equal coverage with the world science community although their numbers are few and their scientific inquiry is non-existent.

The Petition, BTW, has been discredited in so many places that I am surprised that any "scientist" would dare mention it.

It does not have 95% of Ph. D's among its signatories. It has virtually none. It has vets, drug store employees; the odd medical doctor; and quite a few of the dearly departed.

[cybercoma]

World temperatures did not stay the same or decrease between 1940 and 1975. They increased. Why was there a fear of a new Ice Age dawning around 1970? It was because of the increasing temperatures that were melting Icecaps then leading to the asusmption that the same process was under way that caused previous Ice Ages.

We know now that it is something more.

Interestingly, there was something of a cooling in some areas in the 90's: notably in the American mid-West and, I think, some parts of Canada.

That cooling was a consequence of the warming of the Oceans. Higher evaporation led to increased water vapour and denser and prolonged cloud cover in some areas. That cloud cover reduced the effect of the Sun and reduced the amount of radiated heat

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point exactly.

[cybercoma]

Take a look at the political and business affiliations of the members of the Friends of Science. Then try to find a scientific paper supporting their irresponsible statements.

Just for one claim that I can tell you is the purest nonsnese. The claim that the Greenland Ice Cap is getting colder is misinformation of the most reprehensible kind and the purveyor of it should be stripped of his Ph. D. There is science behind that cooling that is a consequence of warming and ice melt.

The nephew of mine I mentioned in one discussion as teaching at an America university was, before moving to the US, Chief Researcher at the Danish Lithosphere Centre and is a World acclaimed expert on that part of the Earth. As such, he participated and led expeditions to Greenland. His findings are not those of your "oily" Friends of Science.

He has also done research and written papers on the imminent death of coral reefs, BTW. That forms a Lithospheric area of concern.

Kyoto certainly was flawed but it was the best that could be done given the power of the opposition.

That is another falsehood of those Friends with whom science needs no enemies. All the media publicity is given to these attention seeking poseurs. It is given because they have the financial backing from those business interests that care only about their bonuses. Media tallies show that these criminals have received equal coverage with the world science community although their numbers are few and their scientific inquiry is non-existent.

The Petition, BTW, has been discredited in so many places that I am surprised that any "scientist" would dare mention it.

It does not have 95% of Ph. D's among its signatories. It has virtually none. It has vets, drug store employees; the odd medical doctor; and quite a few of the dearly departed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

classic example of ad hominem arguments.

[err]

classic example of ad hominem arguments.

Better check out the definition of "ad hominem" Cybercoma.... If Eureka were calling you the names that you probably deserve to be called, and that most of the readers are thinking, it would be classified as ad hominum.... If Eureka attacked your credibility because of the nature of your employ, or your lack of education, it would be classified as ad hominum...

However, Eureka simply pointed our that you held up false evidence from shady characters that do not have credibility.... that's just straigtening out the facts...

[cybercoma]

classic example of ad hominem arguments.

Better check out the definition of "ad hominem" Cybercoma.... If Eureka were calling you the names that you probably deserve to be called, and that most of the readers are thinking, it would be classified as ad hominum.... If Eureka attacked your credibility because of the nature of your employ, or your lack of education, it would be classified as ad hominum...

However, Eureka simply pointed our that you held up false evidence from shady characters that do not have credibility.... that's just straigtening out the facts...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't cite examples from the persons he was attacking.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

classic example of ad hominem arguments.

Sadly, that is what most of the debate about global warming is. It is attacks and counter attacks about the validity of the data, and how it gets interpreted. Many of 'naysayers' spout off about how it is a communist ploy to redistribute wealth, when that really isn't the intention. Kyoto may certainly be a flawed mechanism to address global warming, and due to it's wacky applications, should be scrapped. However, I don't think that the issue should be linked to Kyoto itself in such a way, and I truly believe that steps to eliminate pollution (read:lessening mankind's detrimental impact on the earth), in all it's forms, should be given much more importance.

[cybercoma]

Dear cybercoma,

classic example of ad hominem arguments.

Sadly, that is what most of the debate about global warming is. It is attacks and counter attacks about the validity of the data, and how it gets interpreted. Many of 'naysayers' spout off about how it is a communist ploy to redistribute wealth, when that really isn't the intention. Kyoto may certainly be a flawed mechanism to address global warming, and due to it's wacky applications, should be scrapped. However, I don't think that the issue should be linked to Kyoto itself in such a way, and I truly believe that steps to eliminate pollution (read:lessening mankind's detrimental impact on the earth), in all it's forms, should be given much more importance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was scanning through articles in the Windsor Star the otherday and evidently the United States has cut emissions by 45% whereas Canada has only reduced them by something like 1.5% (my numbers may be a bit wrong, but it's close to those). They're simply attributing it to productivity slowing down in the United States and increasing in Canada, particularly in the areas of energy and oil refining, etc.

If this is true, it is interesting the implications Kyoto will have when you consider our increased prodcutivity is being blamed for emissions staying roughly the same. If reducing productivity is the best way to reduce CO2 being put in the atmosphere, then it's no wonder the US refused to sign. This does imply, more or less, that when a country becomes more productive it'll be required to give money to less productive countries by way of buying credits.

Seems a heck of a lot like redistributing wealth to me.

[err]

QUOTE(Toronto Star @ 15 October, 2005

)

Planet has warmest September on record

Second-warmest September was in 2003

Reliable records go back to 1880

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Worldwide, it was the warmest September on record, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said today.

Averaging 0.63 degrees above normal for the month, it was the warmest September since the beginning of reliable records in 1880, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

The second warmest September was in 2003 with an average temperature of 0.57 degrees above the mean.

For the United States it was the fourth warmest September on record.

The average U.S. temperature for the month was 1.4 degrees above average.

Only the West Coast and parts of the Rockies were near normal. Louisiana had its warmest September in 111 years of national records and an additional 27 states ranked much above average.

It would appear that the Associated Press article, quoted above sees that it's getting warmer too.....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear cybercoma,

If reducing productivity is the best way to reduce CO2 being put in the atmosphere,

No, it isn't the 'best' way. It is the way fearmongers without imagination or a sense of responsibility put it. In fact, the numbers you posted, and the reason for them, is an example of 'doing nothing'.

This does imply, more or less, that when a country becomes more productive it'll be required to give money to less productive countries by way of buying credits.

Seems a heck of a lot like redistributing wealth to me.

Again, I agree Kyoto is flawed and should be scrapped. There are other ways to protect productivity and protect the environment.

[Guest eureka]

That was reduction of pollution not CO2, CC. CO2 is going on its merry way upward. The only encouraging sign from the US is that a number of corporations including some energy companies, are now on the side of the Angels.

[err]

If, as a consequence of the "energy crisis" in the early '70s, the automotive companies could, in 2 years, come up with an across the board 25% increase in the efficiency of automobiles, I'm sure with a little effort, they could come up with a bit more right now...

For example, putting ANY pollution constraints on SUVs that weigh more than 6000 pounds would be a start... currently, they don't have to meet any criteria for emissions.

Tightening the criteria for SUVs under 6000 pounds would be another big plus....

This doesn't have to "cut productivity"... If it cuts sales of SUVs, and the auto companies sell more 'practial' vehicles or more highly efficient 'sporty' vehicles, where's the loss in that....

[August1991]

Harper has doubtless taken note that the environment has become an important issue for voters, particularly this winter as they experience weird weather coast to coast and particularly in Ontario and Quebec. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney publicly commented last month that the Conservatives should prove themselves as environmental stewards if they want to succeed in the next election.

Canoe

Golfers were booking tee times yesterday in anticipation of mild weather forecast for the Montreal region from today until the weekend.

"We're playing golf like it's summertime," said Andre Guay, president of the International 2000 Golf & Country Club in St. Bernard de Lacolle, about 70 kilometres south of Montreal.

....

While last January was our warmest in more than 100 years, he added, it's still too early to say whether this January could be even warmer.

Environment Canada and the Weather Network are forecasting a high of 4C today.

Montreal Gazette

I heard a prediction of 8 degrees for today as I drove into Montreal tonight.

Hmmm.

[cybercoma]

I guess the golfers aren't complaining.

And I still laugh at anyone who honestly thinks we can 'reverse' this.