• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

consensus is not part of science, it is part of politics. 

The only thing that matters in science is data, real data, real numbers.

And the real numbers tell us the planet's atmosphere is not behaving as the scientific consensus says it would behave. 

I'd guess that 97% of scientists  who support AGW also depend on AGW for their pay check, career and fame.

Everyone has a choice, believe the data or believe the consensus and the computer models.  In the end it makes no difference what anyone wants to believe. Data will always prevail.
 
I have very limited faith in our ability to understand the workings of complex systems.  The stock market, the brain, ecosystems, the environment, whatever.  We can collect "data" and observe changes but our powers of prediction and ability to accurately assign cause to effects is extremely limited.  That being said, I still do believe we need to change the way we do things.  Wasteful use of resources, careless production of various forms of waste and willful destruction of existing ecosystems I think quite logically will have negative long (and short) term effects on our health, economy, happiness and even our chance of survival.  AGW or not, we should strive to use less non-renewable fuels, husband our resources and cause less damage to our environment.  Doing so will ultimately benefit us all...and if the climate change scare group happens by dumb luck to be correct in their guesses then we'll help with that as well.
 
I'd like to see your sources backing up this claim.

I think he's talking about this one http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Those 30,000 scientists are they in the field that relates to climate?
Looks like over 3000 of them are.

Also where do you get your 2500 figure from?

It's part of the methodology behind the NASA 97% figure. That number is extremely dodgy.
 
There are many other environmental problems.
In China, 'cancer villages' a reality of life http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/world/asia/china-cancer-villages-mckenzie/index.html

Just because AGW is wrong why do we get to burn the 60 million years worth of stored carbon for the benefit of three generations? Just because they are wrong does not make burning that precious resource right. We don't get to use up the world like we are the only people who will ever live here.

Global Warming is becoming a distraction from out unethical environmental stewardship.




 
Nemo888 said:
....
Global Warming is becoming a distraction from out unethical environmental stewardship.

....

Now Nemo, If you and your friends had stuck to that line for the last couple of decades, and accepted incremental change, then you would have found many others, including quite a number on this site, willing to walk with you.

Instead, you were impatient and played for the extravaganza.  Now you find that you, and Hollywood, can't maintain the steady stream of Blockbusters that such a strategy demands.

People are infinitely adaptable.  And eventually they accept the worst crisis and bash on regardless with just a low level whinge in the background about how "it weren't like this when I were a lad".

I too believe in doing what we can with what's available and as efficiently as possible.  Strangely enough efficiency translates into profits AND cleanliness.
 
Nemo888, well said. We as a society must practice more environmental stewardship. For other folks, I will when I have time explain how farming in the Allan Savory-Joel Salatin-Greg Judy holistic principles WHEN I have time. I am about to get a second pasture and manage more cattle so time is very limited right now.
 
Kirkhill said:
Now Nemo, If you and your friends had stuck to that line for the last couple of decades, and accepted incremental change, then you would have found many others, including quite a number on this site, willing to walk with you.
Instead, you were impatient and played for the extravaganza.  Now you find that you, and Hollywood, can't maintain the steady stream of Blockbusters that such a strategy demands.

People are infinitely adaptable.  And eventually they accept the worst crisis and bash on regardless with just a low level whinge in the background about how "it weren't like this when I were a lad".

I too believe in doing what we can with what's available and as efficiently as possible.  Strangely enough efficiency translates into profits AND cleanliness.

+1

I think there is so much truth to this it isn't funny.

One of the reasons why some of us are so against the AGW movement is that the self-aggrandizing, self-enriching lies of so many of these pseudo-scientists have taken funds away from what could've been really productive environmental projects to the point that their misdirection has made things environmentally worse than it otherwise would be.

If we weren't focused on CO2, would we have allowed the deforestation of Indonesian Virgin Rainforest to plant 'renewable' palm oil groves?  How about continued Brazilian deforestation of the Amazon basin?  How about smog days on the west coast caused exclusively by Chinese coal power plants which are never the target of the AGW advocates? 

How about GMO food?  How the hell did we take our eyes of that?

How many acres of virgin rainforest could have been protected?  How many more acres deforested land, reforested?  National Parks created?  Clean Water funding for municipalities to that we're once again able to swim in our rivers and lakes?  Clean air legislation to include the targeting of airborne heavy metals and particulates?

If you ask me AGW is one of the absolute worst things that's ever happened to the planet as it's created such a giant smoke screen to the far more serious problems.

I should add that no one appears to notice that the nation that's profited most from the AGW hysteria created is China as carbon costing and programs in North America and the EU make manufacturing in all those regions relatively even more expensive, while China is somehow exempted from any responsibility for its behaviour.  So in essence the same industrial capacity still exists as pre-AGW initiatives.  It's just been relocated from North America and the EU to China....and in doing so the pollution is actually worse instead of better.  But China is now stronger, and everyone else is struggling with unemployment and massive debts.  Brilliant!

For those who don't believe in coincidences, go do a quick Google-Fu on Maurice Strong & AGW....there's a lot of dots that connect.


M.
 
Pointman skewers  . . . . 

"Even at home in areas of their own supposed expertise, the alarmists weren’t safe. The solid job of statistical work that Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre did to debunk Mann’s paper, which derived the iconic hockey stick, is a notable case in point. Using nothing more than statistical numeracy and an admirable degree of persistence, they took a hard look at what was supposed to be a landmark paper, and ended up with Mann’s head mounted atop his own hockey stick. When it comes down to anything to do with hockey, and two Canadians versus a slightly rotund little fellow from Massachusetts, my money’s on the two Canucks"

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/how-to-run-a-really-bad-infowar-campaign/
 
This post from Science Daily reports on a paper by Professor Qing-Bin Lu, a scientist at the University of Waterloo, that claims that CFCs and not CO2 caused global warning. It goes on to say that the reduction in CFC emissions has led to the recent cooling period. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provision of the Copyright Act.

Global Warming Caused by CFCs, Not Carbon Dioxide, Researcher Claims in Controversial Study


May 30, 2013 — Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to a researcher from the University of Waterloo in a controversial new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.


CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now suggests that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the researcher argues.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined -- matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays -- energy particles originating in space -- play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu. "After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."

By demonstrating the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs -- a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses support Lu's CRE theory and point to the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."

"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."

Professor Lu's paper, "Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change," also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models, Lu argues.
 
the latest Global Warming consensus  -  100% of the climate models are wrong.


My computer models say it should be rapidly warming up
The actual data says it is not.
Gradually models will yield to the dictates of data.
 
Early this week at a site C meeting I was attending, a claim was made that due to climate change rainfall related inflow into the Williston Reservoir would increase by approx. 6-11%. Which would weaken BC Hydro case for the need of a new dam. Seems the more I hear about climate change, the better it is for Canada.
 
So the climate scientists that made us stop using cfc's saved our asses. They certainly hit that one out of the park.
 
Nemo888 said:
So the climate scientists that made us stop using cfc's saved our asses. They certainly hit that one out of the park.

::) Yep.  The CO2 AGW crowd sure that got that one right- in the 1980s.
 
But that doesn't explain the arctic sea ice that is still melting or rising sea levels. The problem is Mother Nature does not make deals. This is not arms control or free trade. If you screw up nature you die.
 
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels (at least from my reading) are at or above historic levels during the winter.

I have come across no credible study which actually shows significant sea level rise occurring.

My point about CFCs was that it pre-dated the Global Warming Scare, back when much of the same crowd was actually worried about global cooling.  That a study has now found a correlation between CFCs and warming is very interesting. Obviously much more study needs to into this avenue.
 
Nemo888 said:
So the climate scientists that made us stop using cfc's saved our asses. They certainly hit that one out of the park.

Perspective is everything......

I don't like colder winters.  We need more hairspray.
 
It is 22cm of sea level rise in the last 100 years. The sea ice diminishing is even visible from space now. We are developing new trade routes from Europe to Asia because the ice has receded so much. The cause of the problem may be controversial in this small corner of the internet, but not the fact that it is receding.
naam-ice-06.jpg


CFC's were causing UV light to sterilize much of the Southern Hemisphere. Translucent organisms like phytoplankton were being wiped out. Phytoplankton is the largest food source and carbon sink on the entire planet. Global warming was the least of our problems back then.
 
A most excellent summary of the economic perils of green energy . . . . this story should be  glued on the tower of every Wind Turbine in Ontario and tacked on McGuinty's forehead.

"Energy insiders have long known that the notion of ‘renewable energy’ is a romantic proposition – and an economic bust. But it is amazing what the lure of guaranteed ‘few strings attached’ government subsidies can achieve. Even the Big Oil companies bought into the renewables revolution, albeit mostly for PR reasons. Like Shell, however, many quickly abandoned their fledgling renewable arms. Post-2008, they knew, the subsidy regimes could not last. Neither was the public buying into the new PR message . . .

. . . And yet, aided by aggressive and heavily-funded green lobbies, leftist social engineers, appalling journalism, naive politicians and unscrupulous opportunistic renewable energy entrepreneurs, wind turbines and the photovoltaic industry quickly became established facts on the ground, giving the appearance of economic ‘viability’. Why else would government back them using our cash?"

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3827/the_great_renewables_scam_unravels

 
Back
Top