• 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

This is how the CBC treated the "Coldest Winter in 15 years" story:

Not since the grunge era and Brian Mulroney's days as prime minister has Canada experienced a winter quite as bitter as the one expected to creep in this December, Environment Canada forecasted on Friday.

Not quite sure how to take this.


A: Brian Mulroney (and by extension the Conservatives and Stephen Harper) are harbingers of all that is evil in this world including harsh winters
B: Brian Mulroney and Co. are the cure for Global Warming and should be elected in perpetuity.

Hard to know.
 
Kirkhill said:
This is how the CBC treated the "Coldest Winter in 15 years" story:

Not quite sure how to take this.


A: Brian Mulroney (and by extension the Conservatives and Stephen Harper) are harbingers of all that is evil in this world including harsh winters
B: Brian Mulroney and Co. are the cure for Global Warming and should be elected in perpetuity.

Hard to know.

The third possible subtext is: things were soooooo good between 'Fibber Muldoon' and and 'Steve' that we all want more and more and more of 'tit Jean and Alphonso Gagliano, et al.
 
Isn't making broad brush predictions like "harshest winter since [insert arbitrary date here]" kind of like Heraldo opening Capones vault?  Generally it is a big dud and even if it is accurate then who cares? 
 
Or the hurricane forecasts. They were so desperate this year they were even naming a storm off the coast of Nova Scotia a tropical storm. Then they worried openly that maybe no one will believe their forecasts. ;D
 
Interesting observation (no pun intended) on the subject of storm counts:

Tiny Tim Storms
By Steve McIntyre


My operational definition of “Tiny Tim storms” are those that were so minimal that the NHC end-of-season reports do not report a single ship or single shore report of storm-force winds. This is not a matter of report oversights - storm analysts consider surface verification of wind estimates to be an important matter and list shore weather reports and ship reports in their reports.

And, the lack of ship or shore reports is quite significant if someone is looking at storm climatology. Storms lacking ship or shore reports of storm-force winds would, prior to 1945 (the start of recon), not have been classified as a tropical storm/hurricane. Why? Because, prior to 1945, all the meteorologists had were ship and shore reports. No aircraft recon, no satellites, no buoys and no Doppler radar - just ship and shore reports. ...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2474

On the link there's much more, including graphs showing the official vs. adjusted (without the storms that had no associated ship or shore report) number of storms over time.
 
Divorce bad for the environment, researchers say

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/12/03/divorce-environment.html



Something to consider before you run to the lawyer looking for a divorce!  You know you can pretty much link everything and anything to this global warming issue...  There's never a cat around when I need something to kick.
 
From the a/m article:

That costs $6.9 billion US in extra utility costs per year, Liu said, plus an added $3.6 billion for water, in addition to other costs such as land use.

I have never understood the relevance of stats like this.  Since people pay for water and utilities, how does it matter if there are lots used?  Doesn't that just translate into more money into the economy?  I reiterate my almost total lack of knowledge on things financial and economic. 
 
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Divorce bad for the environment, researchers say

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/12/03/divorce-environment.html



Something to consider before you run to the lawyer looking for a divorce!   You know you can pretty much link everything and anything to this global warming issue...  There's never a cat around when I need something to kick.

Quick.  Next butterfly you see grab it and stop it fluttering.  A sure cure for global warming (or cooling).  ::)
 
Quick.  Next butterfly you see grab it and stop it fluttering.  A sure cure for global warming (or cooling). 

OOps!  You made sense!  When do you see a butterfly?......When it's warm.......coincedence?  ;D
 
Flip said:
OOps!  You made sense!  When do you see a butterfly?......When it's warm.......coincedence?   ;D

Dammit.  Stop me when you see that happening again.  It damages my reputation.  ;D
 
Perhaps the most impressive analysis of the numbers yet:

http://jojourn.blogspot.com/2007/12/help-please.html

Help please! Update: Jonathan Kay to the rescue!
Evening Update: It appears that Jonathan Kay intends to publish this editorial in tomorrow's Post - Dump Kyoto, Save Lives. (H/T National Newswatch)

It's a direct rebuttal to Byers' Star piece (see below).


    ...My problem with the Kyoto camp isn’t that it’s peddling “junk science.” It’s that, like Byers, they go straight from the science to the politics without stopping to count the money. What if global warming is real, but Kyoto is still a rip-off — even according to the big-hearted humanitarian logic at the core of the pro-Kyoto camp?

    On that note, here’s something that pops out at you when you read Byers’ op-ed: a total absence of numbers. The same is true of most pro-Kyoto articles, and sometimes even whole books. Too often, the argument for fighting climate change is based on vague appeals to cuddly polar bears, our moral debt to mother nature, the “will of the international community” — as well as the usual litany of worst-case (and, often, worse-than-worst-case) disaster scenarios. You rarely see anyone actually crunch the numbers and prove Kyoto’s worth on a cost-benefit basis...

    Consider: The global all-in compliance costs of Kyoto amount to about $180-billion per year. Yet all these billions — even paid in perpetuity — would delay the globe’s expected rate of heating over the next century by just 5%. Assuming Kyoto is allowed to expire in 2012, its total effect will have been to delay the pace of global warming by one week. In terms of Canada’s contribution to Kyoto, the effect would be measured in hours. Think about that the next time Dion or David Suzuki lecture you about Canada’s lost opportunity to save the world.

Thank you Jonathan for this refreshing reality check. If only all my wishes were answered so swiftly.
 
>Since people pay for water and utilities, how does it matter if there are lots used?

In the case of water, it matters if the amount which is surplus to the requirements of nature is significantly less than demand.  Only cities which have major reservoirs not very far upstream from major bodies of water can avoid significant water use impact.  For example, the watercourses which drain greater Vancouver's reservoirs generally receive as much water as needed for the fish (spawning grounds).  Greater Vancouver has more than enough water (rain), but not enough storage to make it through the drier summer months without rationing.  The further upstream a community and the drier the climate and the greater the number of people, the more it is necessary to treat water as a commons for which people should be accountable (ie. pay).  Fortunately many of the world's largest cities are on coastlines.

The impact of increased sewerage is mainly one of water use.  Increasing the number of households (detached or otherwise) may increase water usage, if the quantity of dishes or clothes per wash is reduced.  The same number of people still take the same number of showers/baths and execute the same number of toilet flushes per day.  Increasing the number of homes with yards definitely increases water usage.

More households require more energy (electricity, fuel oil, natural gas).  But I suspect the real aggravating factor is home size.  People expect to have more space and more privacy (more bedrooms, more bathrooms) than in the recent past.
 
In Edmonton we have a water strategy no one wants to talk about.

You see the waste treatment plant is upstream from Edmonton about 10Km
The water intake is roughly halfway into Edmonton.

Yup, we drink our own bath water.  We'll never run out.  ;D
 
Couple of good articles from todays' G&M that make sense to me:

That ol' beer-fridge paradox,  By MARGARET WENTE 
 
http://tinyurl.com/37d4bf

Preaching and preening, Canada-style, By JEFFREY SIMPSON 

http://tinyurl.com/2pub6b

Enjoy!  :)





 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313844,00.html

More on the beer fridge
 
muskrat89 said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313844,00.html

More on the beer fridge

Yeah, of course the study is from a Brit.  Those weirdos drink their beer at room temperature.  Ugh!  :P
 
UP THE POPE!!!
And my Grandfather would never have expected to hear that line from one of his in anything but an ironic tone.  But I mean it.
Presumably the Pope knows something about Prophets and Dogma.

Printed in full from the Daily  Mail via Gateway Pundit.

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
By SIMON CALDWELL
Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007

Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.



Or, as my Catholic wife put it, if anybody would know when the end of the world is nigh it would be the Pope.  And he apparently hasn't received the memo.  ;D

 
And apparently UN Secretary General is also of a mind with Prime Minister Harper:

UN chief says gas cut targets might be too ambitious

By Alexander Panetta, THE CANADIAN PRESS 

Canada gets boost from UN chief

Article Link


BALI, Indonesia - Canada's bid to water down climate-change targets at a world environmental conference has earned the high-profile backing of the head of the United Nations.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says he agrees that a demand for rich countries to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 might be too ambitious for this week's climate talks to tackle.

His intervention came as a relief to Canada which, alongside the United States, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, is pitted against the European Union and developing countries on the issue....

More on link

 
Meanwhile, after studying global warming hypocrisy from Al "I only fly in private jets and own a massive house" Gore, the head of the UN, after just telling everyone the world is coming to an end, decides that a music concert is more important than global warming.

"The UN secretary-general today called on world leaders for immediate action on climate change - before flying thousands of miles to the US for a music concert and then leaving in the interval to jet to Europe.

Ban Ki-moon has been slammed for planning a round-the-world trip that will generate thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions just days after he leaves the UN meeting in Bali.

The South Korean has organised a post-conference trip, starting on Sunday, that will see him fly to attend the concert in New York, adding more than 4,300 miles to his itinerary. When he leaves the island after the summit Mr Ban will fly to East Timor, and then to Japan where he will briefly stop before catching another flight to the US.


http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20071211/tap-as-gen-bali-climate-conference-5th-l-d3b07b8.html



The flight from Tokyo to New York takes him the wrong way around the world to arrive in time for the reception of a Korean concert-at Carnegie Hall, where he is the guest of honour. The concert is titled Around The World In Eighty Minutes.

The UN is expected to announce plans to offset the emissions generated by all agencies involved in the Bali conference by contributing to various environmentally friendly projects."
 
Well Haletown, at least he is consistent.  He didn't say what action and he apparently doesn't agree with targets that will impede his concert-going.
 
Back
Top