New CC studies, for those interested.

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 4:55 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/1 ... 24184.html

Tightening the link between human caused CC and more intense rain/snowfall. I thought it was interesting anyway.

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:12 pm

Paul,
it's just you and I.
I got record snow in early February. In late January, the Caribbean was unusually warm, and we got very humid warm air off the gulf just before the Arctic air hit. I, for one, think it is not all coincidence.
Anyway, we set a record high low this morning and tied a record high for the date this afternoon. While I complain about GW in August, today I liked hiking in short sleeves. Even if I had to use the AC in the car....
--Erik

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:34 am

Thanks for the link Paul.

Im not sure about down by Toronto,but I can definelty notice a difference. When you ask the older generations, all they mention is how dry the summers are, and how warm and short the winter has gotten. Heres a quote from borealforest.org :

"The winter of 1995-96 broke a period of overall decline in winter snowfall amounts. People who recall winters with more snow in the 1950s and 60s are correct....."

After that, the snowfall here has remained relitivley low. In the last 5 years weve had 2 years with average precipitation. Winter 2009 - fall 2010 was the warmest and dryest on record here.

One study i read ( i doubt i can find it), stated by the years 2030, in the lesser predictions, Toronto will have a climate ( im assuming temprature wise) of kentucky.

Im not sure if anyone heard about the praries here. They were in a drought for years, only to be literaly inundated with water spring summer fall and winter. Winnipeg is expecting flood levels at or above the 1997 "flood of the century". Funny concidering most things ive read suggest that central parts of N America are drying up.

TimMAz6 · Post by **TimMAz6** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:05 pm

just keep in mind that huffington post is a 'warmist' group. You won't find any skeptical views on that site.

A few years ago the so called 'census' said the northeast USA was going to receive less snow and be warmer....now it's a different story.

Why can't the scientists just say 'we don't understand'? Does anyone really think we'll understand the complex climate system in our lifetime?

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:21 pm

Paul,
Tim has a point. I don't link to huffpo. Next time, link closer to the original (e.g., this summary story: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/ ... 0316a.html ). Nobody has accused of Nature of being biased, that I can tell.

As for, "we don't understand", well, I say that everyday! Its like, "does smoking dried leaves of Nicotania cause cancer?" I'd say, well, there are many factors involved....

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:22 pm

"Why can't the scientists just say 'we don't understand'? Does anyone really think we'll understand the complex climate system in our lifetime?"

I agree with this. I think something a bit more detrimental is cloud seeding. Weather is such a complex system computers cant even fully agree upon what effects cloud seeding has. If im not mistakin, weather is a great example of the butterfly effect. Cloud seeding in texas could mean drought in africa.

The one thing that ive never understood, is how its usually refered to as "global warming" rather then climate change. Some places are predicted to be colder, and warmer. Drier in some, more rainfall in others. Im sure we can get a general picture of things, but to say we can predict it perfectly doesnt make sence to me.

lucky1 · Post by **lucky1** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:22 pm

At my current temperature, I'm pretty ticked winters aren't warmer and summers cooler.

End of February here should be T-shirt weather!
Instead I'm searching for my toque.

Barb

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:48 am

Sorry- I relinked from another site. I don't know the 'Huffington Post'.. The only American news I get is either on the CBC or Jon Stewart (yes, I know it's a fake news program, but it's the best news that comes out of the USA!)... Yes, this is by choice, we do have access to these channels on cable (I don't have a TV... I also don't have a car, which I think is blasphemy south of the border), and online!

Anyway- In future I will link through a recognized journal with a solid peer review process. I, personally, can not think of a 'coolest' article in any peer-reviewd journal. Erik, any thoughts?

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:20 am

For most main articles, I usualy try to find a bunch of different copies of it. Usualy they are all the same, but sometimes it seems someone uses their own interpretation, without really any solid proof. Not that using your own interpretation of the evidence in question is wrong, just be prepared to back it up.

Really, ive found it kind of hard to find any news article that isnt biased to some degree. ( im talking someone who truely belives that what they are writing is true, and backs it up, which IMO, is a whole other level then biased like someone liek Glenn Beck.

Havnt they been predicting more rain and intense storms for a decade now ??

TerdalFarm · Post by **TerdalFarm** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:35 am

Paul,
huffpo is a quirky aggregator site where you get serious stories about the earthquake next to a story about some starlet's baby bump. I check it daily because you never know what will be there.
As for serious science, no I have not seen a single publication that could be called "coolist."
Anyway, time to go outside. Horses are happy that the pasture is greening....
--Erik

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:15 am

Is it not true that past warming events have caused cooling? The only example I can think of off the top of my head was when lake agassiz ( now known to stretch from manitoba to north western quebec, south to lake nipigon, and north to the center of hudson bay) flooded into the Atlantic ocean. Global warming melted what was left of the glacier, forcing billions of tons of water every hour into the ocean. This caused the the seperation of the UK from europe, created the black sea and also changed coast lines around the world. The large flush of fresh water, shut down the gulf stream, effectivly causeing Europe into a mini ice age. ( No link, it isnt an article, its a show called "ancient weather" on history.ca. Theres 5 episodes and explains the role climate change has played on our species. A VERY VERY good show which you can watch directly from that website!)

Okanagan desert-palms · Post by **Okanagan desert-palms** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:48 am

Some food for thought on this subject. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/1 ... rting.html

John

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:39 am

Thanks John. Had a look through some of those articles... Seems this fellow Craig Loehle has published more of them than anyone, I'll have a look at his website! I did- can't find one, but did find a lot of discussion on him, but, only in the anti-cc blogosphere. There are several peer-reviewed articles calling his work into question...

This is one of my favorite skeptical arguments presented in a select paper from that list (I ignored, perhaps improperly, the majority of the articles that were published before 2000)...

"The evidence predominantly suggests that
humans are significantly altering the global
environment, and thus climate, in a variety
of diverse ways beyond the effects of human
emissions of greenhouse gases, including
CO2. Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
assessment did not sufficiently acknowledge
the importance of these other human climate
forcings in altering regional and global
climate and their effects on predictability at
the regional scale."

Perhaps this papers place "Supporting skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming" is a little presumptuous! Still, i do thank you for the list. As I've said before this is outside my field. Logic tells me that the intelligent approach is to go with the consensus in the field (I fully acknowledge that the consensus might not be correct, but it seems that the evidence is piling up!).

Food for thought: There are still 40% of Americans (not sure the number in Canada) who do not acknowledge the theory (fact) of evolution... I should think that the numbers of people who accept the work of the majority of climate scientists, since their models are in their infancy comparatively, would be much lower!
The following website might be offensive to some, it is provided only as a support of my point that even scientifically acknowledged facts have their skeptics: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ttals.html . Note this list is less complete and persuasive than the one John provided for a different topic.

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:17 am

Paul, ive seen this site, quite a few times actualy. And i agree with your point. ( Ill leave it at that, I talk about that specific point extensivly, but this might not be the place to get into that type of discussion).

As far as Im aware theres no real dissagreement about the fact that the climate is changing to some degree. The reasons as to why and how, is the main argument that pops up is it not?

Okanagan desert-palms · Post by **Okanagan desert-palms** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:22 am

Paul I guess I`m not one to follow the consensus just because everyone is falling in line. There is considerable dissension on the consensus of C.C. really G.W. Obviously the dissenting scientists not falling in line are not doing it because it`s popular or their careers are going to benefit or somehow profit. Another interesting read.
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/09/ ... -in-ruins/

John

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:24 pm

canadianplant wrote: As far as Im aware theres no real dissagreement about the fact that the climate is changing to some degree. The reasons as to why and how, is the main argument that pops up is it not?

I agree.

I also have a problem with people wanting to take money away from other people to "fix the problem" We don't even now if there is a problem or if it is a normal event. If you look over the past few thousand years there is nothing unusual about our weather. In the past thousand or couple of hundred years, yes it has warmed. Even if it is man made that does not mean that it can be or should be fixed.
Climate Change is one of the few things people want money to be spent on, but cant show any figures/numbers for the dollars spent. There is no way of knowing if it takes 100 dollars to "fix the problem" or a 100 tril.
If I need money to help feed staving people in the world I can give you cost per tax dollar's and I can give you a number of how many people will be fed for those dollars. If I want to go to the moon, I can give you a cost of how much money it will take to do so. This never has been the case with GW/CC, that is why it is a politicians best friend.
They can take your money (wich would do more good if it went to world hunger) and control your life with new regs and show absolutely no figures/numbers that they have done anything to help with or if they made the problem worse.
Ask any politician promoting CC/GW how many dollars it will take to fix the problem and they can not give you a answer. They can and will tell you if you dont do something the future will get worse. If we spend the money and it keeps getting warmer they will say it would have been worse if we did nothing. If the exact same warming happens without spending any money, they will say we did nothing and now we are paying for it. See a politicians best freind.

Now for all the people that feel we need to spend our hard earned dollars on CC/GW. Everyone of us has the freedom to give all the money we want to the GOV or any other nonprofit org. we want. Helping the poor with education/trade schools is a good start.

Okanagan desert-palms · Post by **Okanagan desert-palms** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:02 pm

Well said Aaron. Follow the money!

CTPalm · Post by **CTPalm** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:07 pm

DesertZone wrote:
canadianplant wrote:Ask any politician promoting CC/GW how many dollars it will take to fix the problem and they can not give you a answer. They can and will tell you if you dont do something the future will get worse. If we spend the money and it keeps getting warmer they will say it would have been worse if we did nothing. If the exact same warming happens without spending any money, they will say we did nothing and now we are paying for it. See a politicians best freind.
Now for all the people that feel we need to spend our hard earned dollars on CC/GW. Everyone of us has the freedom to give all the money we want to the GOV or any other nonprofit org. we want. Helping the poor with education/trade schools is a good start.
I agree, well said - you my friend are correct. If Al Gore actually cared he wouldn't live in a 30,000sq ft home and fly around the world in jets all the time as he stands to make billions on this scam of the century. I can't stand the hypocracy. What really bothers me most is now no matter what happens now cold/hot rain/snow everything is our fault. The earth has been warming since the last Ice age which killed the dinosaurs that used to live in my state of Connecticut, no people to blame. The Earth has been doing this forever. Heating and cooling.

Paul

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:20 pm

The worse thing, is when you realize all thes corperations that are creating all the main pollution, lobby the politicians into place. (this is starting to sound liek a episode of x files

)

This is how I see it. The earth is cooler now, then it was millions of years ago. Im pretty sure that the amound of CO2 we put into the atmosphere isnt doing it any good. But when you realize that more then half the entire worlds forest are now cities or waste dumps, its not the fact were creating pollution ( well it is I think to some degree) , its the fact that we are getting rid of the earths main way of regulating CO2. Only 40 years ago, almost all the rainforests were intact, now if I remember right, its down to less then half or a third. Nature works in balance, but when you take away a major portion of plants things dont work "how they are supposed to" ( its in quotes becasue im sure we are all aware here, that climate and weather does what it wants for the most part).

The earth goes through heating and cooling periods. The brief ice ages are called hienrich (sp) events. Theyve been prevalent in human evolution for most of our recent evolution. On the opposite end, they are also thought to have wipped out the neanderthol in Europe. This is a short ice age in europe lasting a few thousands years, before dramaticly warming.

Also, paleantologists now think that CO2 levels were much higher in the time of the dinosaurs. The earth changes. I think we are just more frightened that our way of life will be changed.

CTPalm · Post by **CTPalm** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:33 pm

I wonder if global warming would have any benefits (other than all of us able to grow our palms without protection) Such as growing more food for the world, not having to burn as much fossil fuel to heat our homes = less pollution. There may be benefits.

Paul

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:12 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/en ... 5_CV_N.htm

What happened to planting some trees, and actualy STOP messing with the weather....

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:02 pm

canadianplant wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/en ... 5_CV_N.htm

What happened to planting some trees, and actualy STOP messing with the weather....

I agree, this stuff scares me. What if they put us into an ice-age. Try and plant crops under ice and snow. Kiss us people in the north goodby.

lucky1 · Post by **lucky1** » Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:48 pm

They can take your money (which would do more good if it went to world hunger) and control your life with new regs and show absolutely no figures/numbers that they have done anything to help with or if they made the problem worse.

Couldn't have said it better, Aaron!
Plus...gov't is more than halfway there now with control via regulations, especially in Canada.
You can't sneeze without a pricey permit in BC ( = Bring Cash).

I personally agree with reducing pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.

Barb

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:07 am

lucky1 wrote:

I personally agree with reducing pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.
Not sure that I agree with that Barb... Look up the chemistry of ocean acidification, then repeat that statement! Also, think about what we breathe...

What is Newtons third law again?

Edit: CO2 has also been demonstrated in laboratory conditions to act as a greenhouse gas.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:58 am

lucky1 wrote: I personally agree with reducing pollution.
CO2 isn't pollution.

Barb

I agree
CO2 is no more a pollution to plants than air is to humans. Not saying too much of anything cant be bad. To much air to a fish might kill it.

lucky1 · Post by **lucky1** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:10 am

What we exhale is pollution?

Just a few industrial "smokestack" pollutants: sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrogenfluoride.
And the stuff that's dumped into landfills in industrial quantities leaches into lakes and rivers and oceans.
http://www.zerowaste.ca/articles/column180.html

Acid-rain-causing pollutants. And cancer-causing.
Barb

canadianplant · Post by **canadianplant** » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:34 am

Im thinking "pollutant" in terms of Co2 means, putting to much. It is known that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, which can cause warming trends. Technicaly nothing natural is a pollutant, is how much we put into the enviroment, while not having enough plant mass to remove it. And its also HOW we use it.g

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:14 am

lucky1 wrote:What we exhale is pollution?

Exactly! You get it! CO2 is not a 'traditional' pollutant, but in excess it sure as hell is a pollutant. When the level of a gas increases too fast for the planet to adapt, and when it causes undesirable consequences, it is a pollutant.

Here's my analogy (Please DO NOT try this at home):

Seal a single room in your house completely. Make sure there is no gas exchange between this room and the air outside of this room. Now, you go into this room and see how long you last. There is no 'pollution' in the traditional sense (well, maybe some methane and some background radiation... And probably some stuff form the plastic you used to seal the room), but I guarantee that it won't take too long for the air to become 'polluted' in the sense I'm using! I also guarantee that it won't be the traditional pollutants that kills you.

Oversimplified? You bet.

Okanagan desert-palms · Post by **Okanagan desert-palms** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:02 am

I`ve posted this before. I think it`s appropriate to post it again in light of the current "debate"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

John

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:40 am

Ha! Thanks for that!

Most scientists won't take the time to debunk all of the problems with the data presented by these 'scientists'...

FYI- Bob Carter has the fortunate (unfortunate?) history of being tightly linked to the oil-industry.

Here is a rebuttal:
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6139

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10 ... _carte.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5478

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:45 am

I should also point out that there are also 'scientists' like him in my field... These are the people who say things like: Monoculture is fine... Before Europeans Canada was one huge monoculture from coast to coast"; or "We found the honey bees rolling around in the pesticide and they showed no ill effects"... It really is quite depressing. And the fact that the public believes these people is just the icing on the cake.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:56 am

Paul Ont wrote: Exactly! You get it! CO2 is not a 'traditional' pollutant, but in excess it sure as hell is a pollutant. When the level of a gas increases too fast for the planet to adapt, and when it causes undesirable consequences, it is a pollutant.

Here's my analogy (Please DO NOT try this at home):

Seal a single room in your house completely. Make sure there is no gas exchange between this room and the air outside of this room. Now, you go into this room and see how long you last. There is no 'pollution' in the traditional sense (well, maybe some methane and some background radiation... And probably some stuff form the plastic you used to seal the room), but I guarantee that it won't take too long for the air to become 'polluted' in the sense I'm using! I also guarantee that it won't be the traditional pollutants that kills you.

Oversimplified? You bet.

Fill a room up with water and you will drown, but it will have to rain a lot before that happens.

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:30 pm

DesertZone wrote:
Fill a room up with water and you will drown, but it will have to rain a lot before that happens.

A very different situation. But yes, if we were producing water as a bi-product of industry (from non-water sources), it could become a concern (there is a concern about the documented melting of glaciers and sea level rise, but this is different again). Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, so, yes, in certain circumstances water could be a pollutant.

No one has pointed out that most of the greenhouse gas methane is produced naturally...

Okanagan desert-palms · Post by **Okanagan desert-palms** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:01 pm

LOL.Wow is Bob Carter the only one questioning G.W. C.C. His video still has plenty of data to back up what he is stating. Thousands of scientists are not buying the dogma presented by the IPCC. Maybe we can go through all the pro IPCC scientists and see where their funding comes from? Billions upon billions of carbon tax dollars are riding on the public buying into G.W. C.C. They make sure we get our daily dose of G.W. C.C. agenda everyday on the news. The house of cards is slowly beginning to crumble beneath the weight of deception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... estionable
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequent ... stions.php I don`t think most people would know there is such opposition amongst scientists of G.W. C.C. This topic is helping get the word out though. Thanks

,

John

lucky1 · Post by **lucky1** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:53 pm

Drumroll...
media release: the following has now been added--by the esteemed IPCC--as greenhouse gases: air, water, daffodils, popcorn, Gucci handbags, Scholl's corn plasters, garden rakes, wooden rulers, yoghurt, augers, diving boards, gliders, spider webs, palms, family photos, postage stamps, acrylic paintings, theatre tickets, ice skates, bobby pins, roosters, acorns, canoes, whales, beeswax, aspirin, hot chocolate, grass seed, rubber bands, mirrors, hole punchers, hammers, and lock de-icers.

Naturally all the above contribute immensely to ocean acidification, soon to be proven to release such unimaginable quantities that they exceed the effects of methane release from deep-sea rifts and former perma-frost.
Ya right.

Barb

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:25 pm

Paul Ont wrote: No one has pointed out that most of the greenhouse gas methane is produced naturally...

So true

Good luck with the GW/CC Thing.

Paul Ont · Post by **Paul Ont** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:25 pm

I can tell you that any climate scientists worth a damn in Canada would be getting funding through NSERC or maybe NASA (there may be specific funding sources for physicists that I, as a biologist, am unaware of). A common misunderstanding is that real science (read unbiased) is on an equal level with that paid for by a company (which can be well funded, but expects a certain result). It is not.

You are free to believe what you like. You're both misguided, which is unfortunate, but expected when only half an argument is presented, and data are cherry-picked. Not your fault. You don't understand the chemistry, and when you don't understand something it is difficult to realize that you are being purposely led astray. An example from my field: http://creationrevolution.com/2011/03/f ... direction/

Note: This article is complete nonsense, but it is by design.

I do like that petition John, Good on you for posting it, I'll have a look through it.

I won't argue this any further. It is very frustrating.

DesertZone · Post by **DesertZone** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 9:19 pm

Paul Ont wrote: I won't argue this any further. It is very frustrating.

Take a break and come back in a month or so. You can find some good reads in .GOV web sites, that is where I get alot of my info. It is a govement web, mostly fact not theory.

Dont give up, just think what would have happened if nobody challanged GW, gas would be 10 dollars a gallon and you would have to pay twice as much for food. But if there is a silver bullet for GW/CC you might be the one to get it back on the table. Because if someone can show some real CO2 facts for the rise of temps, or is that the lower of temps...anyways it should be shared.

I once belived, help me change my mind.

Okanagan desert-palms · Post by **Okanagan desert-palms** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:58 am

Paul people do understand the theory behind G.W C.C. everybody does. We`ve been told to! What I `am in total disagreement is taking that theory and inflating numbers, monopolizing the debate, pushing an agenda, and scare mongering. I`ve never heard such non debate in my life in the media regarding a subject. This is Global warming "time for debate is over" like it or lump it. Don`t you dare disagree with the all mighty scientists of the IPCC. We will discredit, ridicule, deny you. "MONEY" is the reason. Isn`t it always! Any contradictory evidence you bring to the table that C02 is playing a "far much smaller role" in the earths warming and now cooling trend will be dismissed. Now I`m done with this. Back to growing and planting palms,yuccas,bananas. Weather forecast for spring here in B.C. is colder and wetter.

TimMAz6 · Post by **TimMAz6** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:03 pm

I agree that the GW theory is generally presented as 'fact'. Scientists and the news media need to do a better job presenting this data as a theory and not as fact. Jim Hanson is the head of GISS of NASA and is claimed to be the most notable climatologist. Here's his climate model as presented to congress back in 1988. It's been over 22 years...........you be the judge...............do we know how to model the climate?

<img src=http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/ ... 1988-1.jpg>

I'm not very impressed with the prediction. Our global temps are lower than the lowest prediction. 2011 global temps through february are +0.0C.

PalmsNorth.com

New CC studies, for those interested.

New CC studies, for those interested.

Who is online