Rona Ambrose, Darrel Reid & Global Warming

[bradco]

The debate on just how each gas affects the climate, can and will go on for ages. But can anyone dispute the fact that one volcano like Mount St Helens give us many thousands of times the emmissions in one eruption then man has contributed in over 100 years? I remember back when Mount St Hellens erupted there were scientists saying that the gases it gave off during the eruption would make mans contribution insignificant. In the times after that there were dire predicts about nuclear winters etc. I am also pretty sure this was again said with the Pinatubuea eruptions as well. So if just normal day to day gobal happenings can overshadow mans contributions in just the blink of an eye, then should we not question the effects that man really has on his environment. There are many under water volcanoes as well that erupt all the time and these could also affect the temperature of the oceans, but has any of this been looked into and added to the equation? The answer is no, because when you do all this, you will find just how insignificant mans contributions are. Now that does not mean man is off scott free. While his emissions really do not affect climate the way some want to say, it does affect the health and welfare of the people on earth, and should still be looked at in that category.

Yes, those volcano eruptions decreased global temperature by around a degree from materials being thrown into the atmosphere....I guess they block sun rays etc (not sure of the actual figure so dont quote me on it....was signicicant though). Dont know if underwater eruption could change ocean temperatures because ocean is heated from the top so the eruptions I would think wouldnt effect the amount of energy the ocean receives. If anything I would guess it would increase ocean temperatures due to molten material entering ocean. But these are natural events that the earth can handle.

"While these emissions really do not affect climate the way some want to say, it does affect the health and welfare of the people on earth, and should still be looked at in that category."

I had to do a review of an interesting article last year. The article was the report of a study into the origins of human effects on global temperatures. The authour was able to show effects that the increase of agriculture had on global temperatures.

Ruddiman, William E. “How did Humans First Alter Global Climate?” Scientific American

292.3 (2005): 46-53. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost.6 April 2006 <http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=aph&an=15993767>.

you probably wont be able to access the article online through Academic Search Premier unless you have a subscription. Here is the relevant part of my short review of the article if your interested...

How did humans first alter the global climate? The prevailing notion is that global warming, triggered by the release of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, is a fairly recent phenomenon. However, William Ruddiman has a new interpretation that argues this is false. His new hypothesis is that the process begun with our ancestors, whose “farming practices kicked off global warming thousands of years before we started burning coal and driving cars” . Ruddiman published his article How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate in the March 2005 edition of Scientific American where he argues this new interpretation.

The evidence that Ruddiman uses was revealed in an ice core sample at Vostok Station in Antarctica. This sample proved that “concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane rose and fell in a regular pattern during virtually all of the past 400,000 years” . Ruddiman points out scientists have known that such variations exist due to the earth’s orbit around the sun. However, he also discovered something else while examining the records from Vostok. The concentration of carbon dioxide (8,000 years ago) and methane (5,000 years ago) began to rise when they instead should have still been declining. He notes that others have attributed this to “natural factors in the climate system” . However, Ruddiman believes this explanation fails on the grounds that these factors would have been similar in the preceding interglaciations .

What are we supposed to make of this? William Ruddiman offers a new explanation, arguing that farming is the source of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations beginning 8,000 years ago. He argues that agricultural activity was a new factor that had not been present in previous interglaciations and that “the basic timeline of agricultural innovations is well known” . Tracing the history of agriculture he is able to show that farming developed at the same time as the downward trend in concentrations of greenhouse gases reversed. He explains how agriculture not only generates gases such as methane but through deforestation – necessary for clearing land for agriculture – it also increases the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Ruddiman argues that the effect of the warming of the atmosphere was drastic. Using climate models he illustrates that without the combined emissions of early farming and industrialization, “current temperatures would be on their way to glacial temperatures” . William Rudiman explains how this new discovery has led to a new interpretation of history:

“This conclusion is startingly different from the traditional view that human civilization blossomed within a period of warmth that nature provided. As I see it, nature would have cooled the earth’s climate, but our ancestors kept it warm by discovering agriculture”

It is important to note that Ruddiman recognizes that the rapid industrialization of the last two centuries has greatly increased the rate at which greenhouse gases are being pumped into the atmosphere. However, this new discovery and his new hypothesis argue that the beginning of human impact on the atmosphere begun well before this.

[bradco]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas.

Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits).

As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything?

The policy group does not do the science they display the research of others that do. On the other hand those that run around claiming the sky is falling are those who have a vested interest in keeping the reasearch grants coming. Water vapour is the major green house gas. Not Co2. There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...mblings-of.html

The policy group chooses scientists that will get them the results they want. Im not going to argue that not all scientists agree with global warming. But your unwillingness to accept bias in the group you cite is ridiculous. "Those that run around claiming that the ski is falling" will get research grants from universities, museums etc no matter what they are saying...theres always money for research grants.

"Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas" Yes it is, but the total greenhouse effect is the result of the total gases in the atmosphere...which is the most abundant is not relevant. It doesnt matter which gas is added to the atmosphere there is still more gas in it and the result is a higher greenhouse effect. Ill make an easier example for you. There is a parking lot with 100 spots....95 spots are flled with honda civics the other 5 with ford mustangs. The parking lot is full. Now I could jam cars in there and not put them in stalls and create a mess. Does it matter if I jam in a mustang or a civic? No it just matters that I jam in a car.

"There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains."

Now find me one scientist who doesnt believe that there is a greenhouse effect. Dont forget that it is an effect that is very necessary for our survival...we'd all be in parkas if it wasnt for it. It is a naturally occuring effect. The intensity of the effect, however, can be changed. When you take CO2 from the earth and throw it into the atmosphere you change the intensity of the greenhouse effect. Scientists will argue over how large the effect will be, how much gas is necessary for how large an effect, but there is an effect.

[B. Max]

The increases in the speed of temperature hikes correlates with the increase of CO2 emissions due to our industrialization.

That's simply not true.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

What an interesting source. Ive been stuck in university much to long since the rules of proof in academic writing and internet conversations are clearly much different. Your source is a policy group with clear and specific agendas.

Yes they have an agenda. To get the truth out. The truth of scientific facts. As opposed to those who fear monger with their chicken little man made global warming which is based on junk science, misleading information and outright lies.

When it comes to a technical science area Ill trust a scientist group over a political policy group (especially one with an agenda, that isnt about truth, and everything about the economy and profits).

As far as misleading information I took a direct example from the site you gave. The site tries to mislead people into thinking an increase in CO2 doesnt matter because water vapour is the most abundant in the atmosphere. An increase in CO2, against constant water vapour, is still an overall increase in gas. What does water vapour being more abundant have to do with anything?

The policy group does not do the science they display the research of others that do. On the other hand those that run around claiming the sky is falling are those who have a vested interest in keeping the reasearch grants coming. Water vapour is the major green house gas. Not Co2. There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...mblings-of.html

The policy group chooses scientists that will get them the results they want. Im not going to argue that not all scientists agree with global warming. But your unwillingness to accept bias in the group you cite is ridiculous. "Those that run around claiming that the ski is falling" will get research grants from universities, museums etc no matter what they are saying...theres always money for research grants.

"Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas" Yes it is, but the total greenhouse effect is the result of the total gases in the atmosphere...which is the most abundant is not relevant. It doesnt matter which gas is added to the atmosphere there is still more gas in it and the result is a higher greenhouse effect. Ill make an easier example for you. There is a parking lot with 100 spots....95 spots are flled with honda civics the other 5 with ford mustangs. The parking lot is full. Now I could jam cars in there and not put them in stalls and create a mess. Does it matter if I jam in a mustang or a civic? No it just matters that I jam in a car.

"There is no correlation between Co2 and temperature losses and gains."

Now find me one scientist who doesnt believe that there is a greenhouse effect. Dont forget that it is an effect that is very necessary for our survival...we'd all be in parkas if it wasnt for it. It is a naturally occuring effect. The intensity of the effect, however, can be changed. When you take CO2 from the earth and throw it into the atmosphere you change the intensity of the greenhouse effect. Scientists will argue over how large the effect will be, how much gas is necessary for how large an effect, but there is an effect.

No they choose the scientists with the best factual research. I think all scientists agree Co2 has some greenhouse effect but they don't agree it is driving any unnatural climate change. Nor has it been proven to. Did all of the greenhouse gases suddenly disappear and cause the last ice age. The correlation I referred to, is the non correlation between historic Co2 levels and historic temperature levels. That in its self is probably some of the best evidence you can come up with. Your car analogy is just as removed from the subject at hand as the computer models they use to predict global warming. Models that can't be made to correlate with the known historical temperature records, or of even last year will have zero credibility predicting the future.

[geoffrey]

The correlation I referred to, is the non correlation between historic Co2 levels and historic temperature levels. That in its self is probably some of the best evidence you can come up with.

--

Models that can't be made to correlate with the known historical temperature records, or of even last year will have zero credibility predicting the future.

That is just too logical, it won't fly with the emotional science of the chicken little end of the world types.

By the way though, regarding the forum rules, Bradco and yourself should really cut out all those quotes and only post relevant peices. It makes it difficult to read when it's just quote after quote and uses up bandwidth (which costs moooola).

Thanks.

[bradco]

The correlation I referred to, is the non correlation between historic Co2 levels and historic temperature levels. That in its self is probably some of the best evidence you can come up with.

--

Models that can't be made to correlate with the known historical temperature records, or of even last year will have zero credibility predicting the future.

That is just too logical, it won't fly with the emotional science of the chicken little end of the world types.

By the way though, regarding the forum rules, Bradco and yourself should really cut out all those quotes and only post relevant peices. It makes it difficult to read when it's just quote after quote and uses up bandwidth (which costs moooola).

Thanks.

Im not good with computers lol

how do I pick just a select few quotes?

[geoffrey]

Im not good with computers lol

how do I pick just a select few quotes?

Just delete the unwanted text from the window before you post. Make sure to use the preview button to ensure it looks like you intend.

[August1991]

Word for word from the PMO web site:

... Institute a holistic approach that doesn’t treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation.

The Prime Minister said his government will consult extensively with industry, the provinces and territories to ensure these new regulations get measurable results on realistic timelines.

Canada’s Clean Air Act will be introduced in the House of Commons next week.

Holistic?

Introduced next week?

WTF?

[bradco]

Word for word from the PMO web site:

... Institute a holistic approach that doesn’t treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation.

The Prime Minister said his government will consult extensively with industry, the provinces and territories to ensure these new regulations get measurable results on realistic timelines.

Canada’s Clean Air Act will be introduced in the House of Commons next week.

Holistic?

Introduced next week?

WTF?

This gives me the impression he will bet targeting greenhouse gases at least in part? I would love for Harper to do this and admit implicitly that they cause a problem. He can join the likes of even Geroge Bush who according to Ambassador Wilkins takes climate change "very seriously" and to be something of "grave concern and importance". With such traditional foes of admitting climate change getting on the bandwagon I wonder how the rightists on this forum will respond.

[geoffrey]

This gives me the impression he will bet targeting greenhouse gases at least in part? I would love for Harper to do this and admit implicitly that they cause a problem. He can join the likes of even Geroge Bush who according to Ambassador Wilkins takes climate change "very seriously" and to be something of "grave concern and importance". With such traditional foes of admitting climate change getting on the bandwagon I wonder how the rightists on this forum will respond.

The bigger point from the leaks so far is it will target the cancer causing smog that hovers over Ontario and Quebec first, and CO2 second. Great. That's what I've always advocated.

Have the real polluters bare the burden of the costs. Have fun auto industry!

[August1991]

This is kind of sad. It looks like Ambrose was ambushed by a large Liberal bureaucracy:

Ambrose was chosen for the portfolio specifically because it is not for the weak of mind or spine, the eternal conflict between a greener environment and economic green having thwarted able ministers for decades.

But Ambrose inherited something even tougher — an entire Environment Department deeply wedded to the Kyoto protocol as the salvation of the Earth from greenhouse gases and global warming.

After drinking the Kyoto Kool-Aid for an entire decade, the environment bureaucrats were suddenly being asked by the new Conservative government to renounce their faith and start over on some as-yet-undefined “made-in-Canada solution” to a global problem.

The first major response came from Sammy Watson, Ambrose’s first deputy minister and senior bureaucrat when she arrived in February. The story goes that not two months later, Watson was called on the carpet and asked how Canada could get out of the Kyoto international agreement; and how long would it take to come up with an alternative strategy.

When he replied that Canada couldn’t get out of Kyoto, and another plan would take at least three years just to draft, he was promptly reassigned as Canada’s representative to the World Bank.

Greg Weston

It is worth noting that this "entire Environment Department" may have been wedded to Kyoto but it did nothing but chop down trees to print reports and memos for over ten years. Our greenhouse gas emissions kept climbing unabated. If there is evidence that Ottawa bureaucrats live in a different parallel universe, this is it. In the Ottawa dimension, there's no such thing as a reality check because there is no reality. You create a good policy, implement it and walk away.

----

Who said that civil servants answer to their political masters? The Liberal Party's control over the federal government is insidious and if Mulroney can be faulted, it is for insufficiently changing the guard.