Air Pollution and Global Warming

[jbg]

Attack the people not the facts.

Global warming does exist, but the extent of warming caused by humans is virtually impossible to determine.

My bet is that if we are in a warming now, it's cyclical. There's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation ("PDO") and sunspot/solar forcing cycles (long term), North Atlantic Oscillation a/k/a Arctic Oscillation (quasi-long term), El Nino Southern Oscillation ("ENSO") (the familiar short-term El Nino and La Nina) cycles. These all have an impact and interplay with each other to produce cycles. Sometimes, such as during 1976-7, 1977-8 and 1978-9 they all come together to produce a calamitous seeming cooling. Then, the "chicken littles" cluck about global cooling. Other times, such as during 1988-9, 1990-1, 1991-2, and 1997-8 they all come together to produce a calamitous seeming warming. Then, the "chicken littles" cluck about global warming.

Now, when there are cold events, such as record setting snows in NYC, or Halifax's "White Juan" the "chicken littles" call it "climate change", as if there's never been a big windstorm or snowstorm before.

[jdobbin]

Now, when there are cold events, such as record setting snows in NYC, or Halifax's "White Juan" the "chicken littles" call it "climate change", as if there's never been a big windstorm or snowstorm before.

I think weather events are separate from system patterns of warming, are they not?

[jbg]

Now, when there are cold events, such as record setting snows in NYC, or Halifax's "White Juan" the "chicken littles" call it "climate change", as if there's never been a big windstorm or snowstorm before.

I think weather events are separate from system patterns of warming, are they not?

I quite agree. Your "warming" compatriots do not.

[cybercoma]

The Friends of Science is something you referenced. In Canada, Tim Ball is the face of the group. You have his name as a credible scientist on the subject.

There is one way to find out what CO2 concentrations will be. It is for the Conservatives to commission scientific studies from legitimate people. If they don't believe the universities then go to institutes or whoever.

The Friends of Science was referring to that letter that was submitted to the Prime Minister alone, not a reference for my entire argument.

The point is that the problem may not be as severe as the activists would have us believe, hell...the problem may be even worse than they're saying. The only thing we can say with any certainty is that observable data from the 1900s makes it difficult to claim that humanity has a substantial effect on global temperatures. Over the last 100 years temperatures have risen 0.5C, some of which took place before 1940. We had a period of cooling until roughly 1970-1980, then another period of warming which shows a correlation with CO2 concentration. Problem is, the original period of warming didn't have the same CO2 concentrations that people are claiming is the cause. One thing that does have a relationship between both warming periods is solar cycles.

There's more study needed, that has been the point all along. What I'm saying is we don't need knee-jerk legislation to a problem that is largely not understood.

And for the benefit of some posters who don't know what that means, it's understood that CO2 insulates the earth and creates heat...but it's not understood what the global temperature will be into the future and therefore the PROBLEM itself is not understood.

[cybercoma]

I would hope what we could all agree on is that 100 years of data is a blip on the radar and does not sufficiently give any indication of anything, other than the fact that the planet is warming and we're having some impact. There are things in the atmosphere, that we're putting there I might add, that have a cooling effect as well.

Hell, since it was at the beginning of the 1980s that this increase started, perhaps unleaded fuel, catalytic converters and emission standards for vehicles are related to the problem. Maybe our air isn't polluted enough and by cleaning it we're causing the global temperature to rise.

[jbg]

Hell, since it was at the beginning of the 1980s that this increase started, perhaps unleaded fuel, catalytic converters and emission standards for vehicles are related to the problem. Maybe our air isn't polluted enough and by cleaning it we're causing the global temperature to rise.

Actually, there may be a kernel of truth to that. Some argued during the 1970's that the "global cooling" resulted from emission of particulates, and with those removed, temperatures rise. I would take that argument to mean that recent bounce in temperatures, if there is one, has resulted from successful reduction of particulates from industry and dust from agriculture.

[jdobbin]

There's more study needed, that has been the point all along. What I'm saying is we don't need knee-jerk legislation to a problem that is largely not understood.

You should be talking to the Conservatives then since they are the ones are going to set hard emissions standards even if they are in the far future.