Skip navigation

Web-exclusive comment

The Arctic, the tropics and Ottawa

Special to Globe and Mail Update

The global effects of climate change are felt first in the North ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. martha stewart from Canada writes: Real world human priorities from Bjorn Lomborg, 42, Danish economist, author of the "Cool It," a book on climate change to be published in September by Knopf. One: "AIDS. It's something we could diminish dramatically by spending a relatively small amount of money. For about $28 billion, we could probably keep 28 million people from dying over the next 4-8 years. For every $1,000 you spend you can actually save a human life." Two: Malaria. There is a quick and cheap fix, according to Lomborg. The solution? Investing in mosquito nets. "Also, we could do a lot to eliminate malaria by giving people Artemisinin as opposed Chloroquine. It's a slightly more expensive drug, but highly effective." Three: Micronutrient malnutrition. Half the world's population doesn't get enough nutrients. Basically, they need a vitamin pill. Say he: "By simply giving people an iron cooking pot, we could reduce iron anemia, which causes people to lose an average of about 16 IQ points." Four: Free trade. "If you really want to make a difference, make sure that that third world countries can actually participate in the market." What are we focusing on to our detriment? Climate change, says Lomborg. "Yes, it's a problem, but it's not one where we can do very much good right now. If the Kyoto Protocol was instituted, it would save only 1,000 people per year over the century. If you invest in research and development, it would be much more likely that our kids would be able to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the future." From marketwatch.com, July 5
  2. Lemmy Nothor from BCN, Spain writes: I'm surprised he doesn't address overpopulation, and free access to all the birth control products that already exist.
    For a good read on climate change, the Pentagon has done a very serious study on it's effects on world populations. And it's hardly a lefty look on the problem it will generate.
  3. Retired Guy from Canada writes: What climate change?
  4. I R from Canada writes: I was visiting a northern community this past spring in the NWT. I saw magpies flying around. Apparently that is totally unheard of north of 60. These birds do not fly this far north in the summer.

    And then there is the pine beetle in BC - which would not exist but for the unseasonably warm winters in BC these days. Twenty years ago they would have been killed by the deep cold.

    I wonder if these occurrences are indicators of much more significant changes on the horizon - and not just in the far-flung reaches of the wilderness...
  5. M Olsen from Canada writes:
    First: The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than it is now.
    Second: Black-billed magpies have been moving north for a long time -- in response to human settlement and changes in habitat. They have been nesting in Yellowknife since the early 1990s.

  6. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart - AIDS, malnutruition and malaria are ALL just hoaxes that have been craftily concocted but 'scientists' in their greedy attampt to grab more research funds and separate you from your hard earned dollars.

    The conspiracy by the worlds 'academics' runs much deeper than just the climate change group.
  7. Lemmy Nothor from BCN, Spain writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart - AIDS, malnutruition and malaria are ALL just hoaxes that have been craftily concocted but 'scientists' in their greedy attampt to grab more research funds and separate you from your hard earned dollars.

    The conspiracy by the worlds 'academics' runs much deeper than just the climate change group

    ********************************************************

    Bad trolling techniques.....you need to sound a little believable when you troll.
  8. Manuel Berlanga from Toronto, writes: M-Olsen could also benefit of a troll crash-course.
  9. Gaynor From Ekfrid from Canada writes: It matters not whether the issue of climate change is a believed phenomina or not but what does matter is that the current changes to our climate are issues that are not being looked after. The physical changes are happening before our eyes whether we see them as long term or short term. And also, for a country which puts claims on the northern areas in the form of ownership then it should be looking after those people and their problems before some other country or the United Nations moves in and does it for us.
  10. GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: Gaynor From Ekfrid from Canada writes: "... what does matter is that the current changes to our climate are issues that are not being looked after."

    It isn't as if we can 'look after' climate change in any case. Even if the most extreme position of the anthropogenic global warming exaggerators were true, Canada could shut itself down completely and see the resultant reduction in GHG output wiped out in less than a year by increases in China, Brazil, and India.

    And even if our collective suicide actually did reduce world GHG emissions by 2%, the effect on temperature is more likely to be close to nil, since our GHGs are not the sole, nor probably even the dominant factor, in temperature change.
  11. J Luft from Calgary, Canada writes: While climate change is a natural occurring event, CO2 as the cause is nothing more than a political scam.
  12. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: On the bright side, global warming appears to have stopped. Temperatures globally have been flat for the last five years:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
  13. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: J Luft - please see Lemmy Nothor's comment on bad trolling techniques
  14. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall - doesn't appear to have stopped according to NOAA.

    http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
  15. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlynnMoher links to graphs from the University of East Anglia. It is obvious at a glance that the graphs do not show that global warming has stopped. What the graphs show is an extremely steep rise in temperature from 1980 to about 2004. They show that rise continued dramatically in the Northern Hemisphere after 2000. They show that warming decreased somewhat in the Southern Hemisphere in about 2003 and 2004 (and the scientists have always said the effects of global warming are more obvious in the north than in the south) and that for those years the global average was constant.
  16. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor of Skywall - doesn't appear to have stopped according to NOAA."

    NOAA's website limits itself to the USA, a small (very small) subset of the world's surface.

    The Hadley Centre data show continued but decreasing warming in the northern hemisphere from 2002-present, counteracted by slight cooling in the southern hemisphere to result in a flat global average. We can also see that the last time a 30-year warming cycle ended (in 1940) it was the southern hemisphere that started cooling before the northern one did, just as it appears today at what may well be the end of yet another 30-year cycle. Note that from about 1850-1880 we see warming, from 1880-1910 cooling, warming again from 1910-1940, cooling from 1940-1970, and warming from about 1970-2000.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  17. martha stewart from Canada writes: Whether one chooses to believe in the human causes of climate change or not, it is clear that even if we met all the impossible targets of the Kyoto Protocol it would not make any difference to this process in the real world. It would, however, be a fear and false guilt-driven social engineering project run by unelected UN bureaucrats and "scientists" that would make one of Stalin's Five Year Plans seem trivial. And Kyoto is only supposed to be the first step.

    By the way, "climate science" is just in its formative stages and cannot predict ANYTHING long term with any certainty. All it can accurately do is look at the past, and that shows that climate change is constant.
  18. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlynnMoher: Give these poor graphs a break. In the first place, they don't go to the present. They go to about 2004. In the second place, while you can see, if you look closely, decreased global warming for a couple of years circa 2002-2004, the decrease is certainly not dramatic and it is only for a couple of years. Your alleged 30-year cycles are pretty inventive. What you are doing is completely ignoring the overall trend the graphs show from about 1850 to about 2004.
  19. M Olsen from Canada writes:
    Manuel Berlanga -- weak come back. Perhaps you -- or anyone else -- can tell us which fact I cite is incorrect.
  20. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes:

    ""climate science" is just in its formative stages and cannot predict ANYTHING long term with any certainty."

    Wrong. All IPCC reports state precise ranges of probabilities. These are now in the 90% to 95% range, and have been increasing with each 5-year iteration, where previous predictions have consistently been undershooting events.

    "All it can accurately do is look at the past,

    Wrong. Climate science conjectures about the past as well as the future, with probabilities.

    "and that shows that climate change is constant."

    Climate change may be constant. The rate of change is not.
  21. Lemmy Nothor from BCN, Spain writes: I haven't been in Canada for a few years....but I can say this, they are now growing olive trees in England...........and grapes good enough to make wine. And this is a first.
    Regardless of who is responsible.............
    There was also this man in England who has been growing roses for the past 60 years, and for the first time in his life, they bloomed in december last year.
  22. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: Give these poor graphs a break. In the first place, they don't go to the present. They go to about 2004."

    They're updated monthly by the Hadley Centre, itself a hotbed of AGW promoters. You can also go to the data that went into the graphs, a little lower down on the webpage, to see the actual numbers.
  23. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: We might be in a long-term global warming trend, or we might be experiencing a blip in a longer-term global cooling trend. We simply don't know. Perhaps our grandchildren's grandchildren will know.

    Humans contribute a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases: this might accelerate the current blip or trend or not.

    Can anyone rationally explain why Canadians should commit economic suicide based on two maybe's?
  24. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart - the only reason that the Kyoto targets have become impossible to reach (by Canada) is because of 15 years of inaction and a lack of political will. Both of these factors have been made possible by people like yourself that refuse to try to mitigate the risk posed by global warming.

    In 1992 the Earth Summit at Rio proposed a reduction in CO2 emmisions based on 1990 levels. Had we acted at that time we could have easily accompished our goals and we would likely have Canadian companies at the forefront of emmision reduction technology.

    The Kyoto protocol is based on the highly sucessful Montreal protocol that called for a reduction in Ozone depleting chemicals. Kyoto was commited to by many elected governments including ours so your suggestion that it is somehow a social engineering project is somewhat facile.

    Germany is ahead of target to meet their Kyoto goals proving that with action comes results. It is only going to get more and more expensive to resolve this issue.
  25. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: "... the decrease is certainly not dramatic and it is only for a couple of years. Your alleged 30-year cycles are pretty inventive. What you are doing is completely ignoring the overall trend the graphs show from about 1850 to about 2004."

    As to the overall trend, it does increase, but in no sense in the same way that GHG emissions or concentrations increase. Rather as solar cycles shorten, temperatures rise, and as they lengthen, temperatures fall. We have had average solar cycle lengths in the last century detectably shorter than the long-term average of 11 years or 132 months. From 1880-1910, the average was 139 months, from 1910-1940 122 months, 1940-1970 127 months, and 1970-1996 123 months. The latest cycle 23 started in 1996 and has now gone 133 months. The trend corresponds well to solar cycle lengths and while the trend also goes well with GHG concentrations, the decadal changes correlate with solar cycles, and noticably not with GHGs.
  26. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: Peter Lucas - your comment on 'economic suicide' lacks any sort of rational basis. Current estimates are a 2 or 3 reduction in GDP growth - hardly suicide.

    Can anyone rationally explain why we should allow the free dumping of an industrial waste product into the atmosphere?
  27. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: "Climate science conjectures about the past as well as the future, with probabilities."

    Yeah, and it's models conjecturing the past do not actually work. The models fail to 'predict the past' and thus are not reliable to predict the future either.

    While anthropogenic GHGs very likely contribute to some of the observed temperature changes over the last century, it's hard to match their continually increasing concentrations to the cooling periods from 1880-1910 and 1940-1970. Something else is going on, and the Sun is by far the most likely cause.
  28. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: "... people like yourself that refuse to try to mitigate the risk posed by global warming."

    Kyoto does absolutely nothing to 'mitigate the risk posed by global warming'. What would mitigate the risk is measures to adapt to the warming.

    Kyoto is something entirely different. Kyoto seeks to reduce warming by reducing GHG emissions, an approach that has not been proven and which is extraordinarily expensive.
  29. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: "Current estimates are a 2% or 3% reduction in GDP growth - hardly suicide."

    Hardly pleasant either. Economic recessions are brutal to many people living 'on the edge' of their economic ability. Deliberately plunging Canada into recession (or worse, depression) approaches high treason.
  30. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor - you should really read the IPCC reports. No one is suggestion that GHG are the only factor in the global climate and no one is suggesting that the current climate models are perfect thus the probabilities assigned to the event.

    What everyone is saying is that with the current probabilities based on what we no know we are taking huge un-necessary risks with our climate.
  31. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMhor - that was a reduction in GROWTH not a recession.
  32. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: KSW, CO2 and water vapour are not 'industrial waste' products - they are both natural and essential to life.

    You say current estimates (by whom?) call for a two to three percent reduction in GDP. I remember estimates for the gun registry, and they were off by a gazillion percent. Why should I expect these estimates to be any different? And three percent of Canadian per capita GDP, based on 2006 numbers, is $1,068. Multiply this by 33,390,141 Canadian residents and you get $35,660,670,588. Per year! Based on quasi-religious suppositions. Consider that not all Canadians are productive and the per-capita cost rises.

    And, if Canada fully complied with Chretien's irrational Kyoto comittment, it would make nearly zero difference in global greenhouse gas. Why?
  33. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor - you should really read the IPCC reports. No one is suggestion that GHG are the only factor in the global climate..."

    Nearly all media reports on the IPCC tell people that 'humans are indeed the cause of global warming'. And most posters here try to claim the same thing. 'We need Kyoto to save us because reductions in GHGs will stop warming' are typical. The underlying assumption is that GHGs are the cause of temperature changes.

    The IPCC summary reports themselves are less strident, but still offer the conclusion that 'humans cause global warming' without mentioning any other influences.

    The underlying science is even less strident, and if you read it without reading any of the summary reports, you'd conclude that GHGs probably have, at worst, some influence on global temperature changes.
  34. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor - that was a reduction in GROWTH not a recession."

    If the expected growth is 2% and Kyoto drops that by 3%, we have a recession with a 1% reduction.
  35. martha stewart from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: ""climate science" is just in its formative stages and cannot predict ANYTHING long term with any certainty." Wrong. All IPCC reports state precise ranges of probabilities. These are now in the 90% to 95% range, and have been increasing with each 5-year iteration, where previous predictions have consistently been undershooting events. >>> Hugh - I said "certainty" not "probability" so I am not wrong. And the longer term forecasts have only guessed probability and zero certainty. All it takes is one Krakatoa to blow even the short term predictions out of the water. And it MUST be recognized that these predictions are all based on computer models which may or may not be remotely close to reality. As for the past, studied through ice cores and pollen cores and many other converging lines of evidence, there is much more certainty in what we know. Some dramatic climate changes have been historically recorded. And I did not say the rate of change was constant. There have been many rapid and slow climate changes in the past. But change is constant - which makes this whole Kyoto plan to somehow stabilize the climate to our liking a bit like Canute trying to stop the tides. Maybe our next project should be to save the sun - I hear it is burning out. You need to look very closely at just how the IPCC reports are created.
  36. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: And of course even if we did commit economic suicide and shut down all of Canada's 2% of world emissions, China, India, and Brazil would make that amount back up in less than a year. We will have done no one any good whatsoever.
  37. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes:"And it MUST be recognized that these predictions are all based on computer models which may or may not be remotely close to reality."

    Just so, and since those models fail to replicate the past century of temperature ups-and-downs, they can hardly be relied upon to predict future temperature changes.
  38. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: GlynnMohr - if the growth rate is predicted to be 2%, a 3% reduction in the growth rate means that the growth rate will be 1.94%.

    If Canada does nothing to reduce our 2% contribution (our population is about .0045% so per capita we are huge contributors) the we have zero probability of convincing the developing nations to reduce their output - that is why it is important.
  39. martha stewart from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart - the only reason that the Kyoto targets have become impossible to reach (by Canada) is because of 15 years of inaction and a lack of political will. Both of these factors have been made possible by people like yourself that refuse to try to mitigate the risk posed by global warming.

    OK. It's my fault. If only I had accepted the gospel from Maurice Strong and David Suzuki the climate would not change.

    You note that "Germany is ahead of target to meet their Kyoto goals proving that with action comes results."

    Yes, if we just had a massive legacy of inefficient polluting factories like East Germany had, and closed them down, we could meet some target. Worked for Russia too. But we don't. And in the meantime, the population of Canada has risen by how many since 1990?

    Bottom line, I might start taking this a little bit more seriously when the Kyoto hypocrites start setting some examples. Will Travelling Dave Suzuki stay on his island? Will The Kyoto elite cancel their winter holiday/ revival meeting in Bali next December and teleconference instead?
  40. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: Real world human priorities from Bjorn Lomborg, 42, Danish economist"

    http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm
    "M.A. in political science (Cand.scient.pol.) 1991."
    "Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994."
    "It all started in 1998, when Bjørn Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus."

    His misuse of various facts was a bit over the top even for an amateur bent on political spinning.
    http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm
  41. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes re Bjorn Lomborg... "His misuse of various facts was a bit over the top even for an amateur bent on political spinning.
    http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm"

    Ian - Ever since Lomborg published his 'The Skeptical Environmentalist" the eco-crisis industry has made a concerted effort to discredit his work - but the statistics he presented have never been seriously challenged. Have you actually read his book? I can hardly wait for his new one.

    For the record, Lomborg was a Greenpeace supporter who decided to put some supporting numbers to the "crisis" only to discover there weren't any. Sort of like when Joe Wilson went to Niger to investigate the uranium sales to Saddam - with a similar result.
  42. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes:"And it MUST be recognized that these predictions are all based on computer models which may or may not be remotely close to reality." "Just so, and since those models fail to replicate the past century of temperature ups-and-downs" Lying again. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/329.htm "Several coupled models are able to reproduce the major trend in 20th century surface air temperature, when driven by historical radiative forcing scenarios corresponding to the 20th century. However, in these studies idealised scenarios of only sulphate radiative forcing have been used. One study using the ECHAM4/OPYC model that includes both the indirect and direct effects of sulphate aerosols, as well as changes in tropospheric ozone, suggests that the observed surface and tropospheric air temperature discrepancies since 1979 are reduced when stratospheric ozone depletion and stratospheric aerosols associated with the Pinatubo eruption are included." "they can hardly be relied upon to predict future temperature changes. " Climate models don't *predict* anything. They give 'scenarios' based on assume changes in inputs to give us some idea of the consequences of the different scenarios. As such they are useful but they are hardly 'prophecy'.
  43. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: So, KSW. You are willing to pay more than $1,000 per year for you and each of your dependents to set an example for developing countries?
  44. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: We might be in a long-term global warming trend" We are. Global temperature measurement is available and quite reliable. "We might be experiencing a blip in a longer-term global cooling trend." Eventually we will run out of carbon based fuels and the ice ages will probably return. That doesn't solve the 'immediate' problem and is kind of 'vacuous' at best. Kind of like "don't worry about Hitler. He might be hit by a meteor someday" "We simply don't know." I gather that this is the 'royal we' meaning yourself and you have dedicated yourself to 'permanent ignorance'? "Perhaps our grandchildren's grandchildren will know." No question. The only question is whether they will curse your name or not and wonder just how stupid those 'neanderthals' of the twentieth century were. "Humans contribute a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases: this might accelerate the current blip or trend or not." The contribution of industry has been about 33% increase from 280 ppm to 280 ppm. This is a major shift, not a 'blip'. "Can anyone rationally explain why Canadians should commit economic suicide based on two maybe's?" Can you rationally expain why you think moving to alternative fuelsm more conservations and lower emissions would be 'economic suicide' or why you have distorted two facts into 'maybes'?
  45. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: ..believe.. impossible..real world..fear..false..guilt-driven..unelected..bureaucrats..Stalin..trivial. "

    Nice demagoguery, martha. Not a single intelligent statement but so many 'emotional key words' to raise hackles.

    "By the way, "climate science" is just in its formative stages"

    I guess then you consider newtons theory of gravity to be in it's 'formative stages' as well?

    "cannot predict ANYTHING long term with any certainty."

    With some certainly surely. Whether it is enough for you is a different question resting on just how ignorant you want to remain.

    "All it can accurately do is look at the past, and that shows that climate change is constant."

    It can look into the past and estimate WHY climate change has occurred but it can also look into the future and say what will happen if similar forces occur then. Science is not stopped yet. It continues to improve whether you like it or understand it or not.
  46. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - You live in Toronto. You should voluntarily pay as much as possible if you choose to believe this doomsday scenario. We live on a large acreage mostly covered with forest. Would you send me a cheque to cover the CO2 absorbed by our trees?

    And from your last posts it almost sounds like you have fallen for the famous but fraudulent "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures. Say it isn't so!!!
  47. Randal Oulton from Toronto, Canada writes: James Allen does not address the issue that the north is Occupied Territory in the first place, and why Canada has put itself in the position of a colonial power in being the occupier.
  48. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - Ever since Lomborg published his 'The Skeptical Environmentalist" the eco-crisis industry has made a concerted effort to discredit his work" I'm sorry to say that it was scientists that reviewed his claims and posted the rebuttals. I don't know of any fictional 'eco-crisis industry'. "but the statistics he presented have never been seriously challenged. Have you actually read his book? I can hardly wait for his new one." I'm sure you do but that is because you like what he says regardless of it's distortions. And I pointed to a website http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm where you can get a lot of information on the pro/con arguments. "For the record, Lomborg was a Greenpeace supporter" For the record, a child molester that 'used to belong to the church' is still a child molester. I don't know what you think you are claiming here but his record stands on his record. "who decided to put some supporting numbers to the "crisis" only to discover there weren't any." That is certainly the 'story line' he is peddling. Have you ever read the rebuttals and checked the numbers yourself? Always 'go to the source' and 'listen to both sides' "Sort of like when Joe Wilson went to Niger to investigate the uranium sales to Saddam - with a similar result. " Nah. I don't think his wife was outed... and his claims generally use good data but bad 'interpretation'. An example is: "Were Lomborg a natural scientist rather than a political economist, he would understand that it is either ignorant or sloppy exaggeration to claim that even these natural resources have become "more abundant", when what he means is that our knowledge of the availability of such resources, and our ability to extract them, have grown. It is inconsistent to accuse others of lack of rigour and then to be quite so cavalier with the laws of conservation of mass and energy."
  49. Stringer's Smarter Cousin from London, Canada writes: GlynnMohr:"As to the overall trend, it does increase, but in no sense in the same way that GHG emissions or concentrations increase. Rather as solar cycles shorten, temperatures rise, and as they lengthen, temperatures fall. We have had average solar cycle lengths in the last century detectably shorter than the long-term average of 11 years or 132 months. "

    We would be helpful if you would stop being deliberately misleading. If you are trying to imply that there is a correlation between sunspots or solar cycles and global warming, that simply is not true. See: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

    You made similar incorrect claims re ozone depletion and the Montreal Protocol in a previous discussion. When I called you on it, you became very quiet all of a sudden.
  50. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: Ian St. John, if you call a rose something else, it's still a rose. You claim possible duration of the apparent warming trend will last until humans run out of fossil fuel. These are maybe's; not facts. If you put a bunch of qualitative assumptions into a computer model, the result is not objective and not a fact.

    Wikopedia says that natural water vapor accounts for 36% to 90% of global warming. The Canadian federal government says that global CO2 concentration caused by humans represents about 2% of atmospheric CO2.

    So, other than calling me names, tell me why I should believe the theories as facts. Sounds like religion; not science.
  51. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlennMhor: In your link, the raw data is there to 2007 from the Hadley Centre. I don't have time to interpret it. I did find, on the UK Met Office site, a Hadley Centre graph showing global average temperatures to 2006. That shows a continued upward trend, with a bit of levelling off. It is at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.html. This graph in no way supports the points you keep trying to make.

    With regard to the sun's influence, New Scientist magazine (16 May 2007) stated bluntly: "there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny." I'm sorry, but I chose to believe New Scientist, or the American National Academies of Sciences among many other scientific organizations, rather than you.
  52. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - So condescending! If this was a purely scientific issue I would take your critique more seriously.

    Ever heard of the Croll-Milankovitch theory?

    In Nature, Vol 405, 22 June 2000:907 (www.nature.com) you can find this information and more: "the Arctic ice cap became established about 2.4 Myr [miilion years] ago... From then until 0.9 Myr ago, the ice sheets advanced and receded with a roughly 41,000-yr cycle; thereafter they have followed a 100-kyr [100,000 year] cycle and become increasingly dramatic. Such periodicity suggests a controlling mechanism, and the Croll-Milankovitch theory proposes that the regular variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun are the pacemakers of the ice-age cycles...

    "The Greenland (Arctic) and Vostok (Antarctic) ice cores are particularly informative... revealed surprising oscillations of climate on a millennial scale within the main 100-kyr cycle. The greenland Ice Core project (GRIP) identifies some 24 interstadials through the last ice age WITH AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RISING RAPIDLY BY ~7 C OVER JUST DECADES. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."

    There is apparently nothing new under the sun...
  53. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - You live in Toronto." Yes. I state that in my posts. "You should voluntarily pay as much as possible if you choose to believe this doomsday scenario." No. We live in a society that is runnign out of CHEAP resources and the issue is to move towards a more sustainable economy which will help solve the 'pollution' problem as waste is reduced without having to 'sacrifice'. It is a question of 'investing' in better ways, not economic suicide or 'back to the caves'. "We live on a large acreage mostly covered with forest. Would you send me a cheque to cover the CO2 absorbed by our trees? " The issue is not a 'zero sum game' where the last one out pays the tab so I won't either pay you or charge you for the 20 tons of CO2 you put into the atmosphere. On the other hand, I have found that bicycling to work instead of taking TTC is fun as well as being healthier. I have no interest in buying a big honking SUV just so I can crap bigger than the next guy. My ego is not that small. "And from your last posts it almost sounds like you have fallen for the famous but fraudulent "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures. Say it isn't so!!!" If you are somehow referring to Mann, et al 1998 reconstruction of paleotemperatures from tree ring, ice core, and other proxy data, it is in the peer reviewed science. And NAS has reviewed it and validated the science as correct, not fraudulent. More recent studies have extended it back to about 1000 years and given localised reconstructions for regional comparison and many other studies have confirmed the basic nature of the temperature trends. Any temperature reconstruction of the last 1000 years or so will show the same slow cooling of the interglacial followed by the rapid warming from industry. That is just the nature of the facts and giving them an 'amusing name' will not make facts go away.
  54. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: ..believe.. impossible..real world..fear..false..guilt-driven..unelected..bureaucrats..Stalin..trivial. "

    Nice demagoguery, martha. Not a single intelligent statement but so many 'emotional key words' to raise hackles.

    >>> and you mention Hitler, child molesters, etc.

    Yes I have read the arguments against Lomberg's data. Did not change my conclusions. Did you read his chapter on how the WWF falsifies and invents alarmist data like the number of extinctions? And since you discount his work because he is not a "natural scientist" (whatever that means to you), I assume that you must discount the rantings of a fruitfly geneticist like Suzuki or an "internet inventing" blowhard like Gore too?
  55. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian writes "I won't either pay you or charge you for the 20 tons of CO2 you put into the atmosphere"

    So you don't want to actually put your money where your mouth is - you just want everybody to agree with you.

    Our net CO2 production is far less than 20 tons - it could be negative. We we drive less than 10,000 km a year, burn wood for heat, and grow our own fruit and vegetables and maintain a beautiful diverse forest that provides habitat for birds, wildlife and, right now, too many mosquitoes.
    We voluntarily do all of these things (and pay full taxes on the land we leave natural) - but not because of some mass hysteria about "global warming." But if the masses are eventually stampeded into some Kyoto-like process, we would be happy to be compensated - and so should every single owner of CO2 absorbing land.

    Glad you sometimes bike to work but pity you for having to inhale all that smog - that's a real problem.
  56. Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Ian St. John: I admire your tenacity. I pointed out on one of these boards recently that the American Academies of Science (hardly a left-wing, fearmongering group) in 2006 reported to the U.S. Congress that subsequent data showed that Mann's famous "hockey stick graph" was essentially correct. It does not make much difference to those who just want to opine. Try posting on the current story on this website about the green Greenland and keep your sanity. By the way, I see you are from Toronto. Are you related to the Uxbridge-area St. Johns? If so, you and I are reasonably close cousins.
  57. KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: Sorry martha - growing trees is still net zero - the carbon is released when you burn it or when the trees decay. Lomborg was fully debunked in Scientific American for the layman years ago.

    Peter Lucas - yes I already spend much more than $1000/yr trying to reduce my carbon footprint but rahter than asking me that you should ask yourself if you are will to pay untold thousands to compensate for the effects of global warming?

    Your defeatist attitude that there is nothing we can do really isn't helpful. You can't do anything BUT individual actions. Having society or government enforce it doesn't make it any less true.
  58. Andrew Pearson from Montreal, Canada writes: Panic now - avoid the rush!
  59. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: KSW In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote the book 'The Population Bomb', which described how hundreds of millions of people would die from starvation during the 70's and 80's. It made some sort of intuitive sense at the time, and I was young enough to believe it. Ehlrich also believed that the price of metals would soar because too many people demanded depleting and limited resources. Ehrich's theory was widely believed and it was almost sacreligious to doubt him. Of course, he was dead wrong. Canadian demographers are predicting a labour shortage, food is cheaper in real terms, and so are most metals. In the early 70's it was widely believed that the peak of oil exploration and development had been reached, and the world would run out in about 20 years. Now, after 30 plus years of consumption, global proven reserves are higher and the real price of oil is cheaper. People like you were, with ardent fervor, telling me to drive a small car, eat less, and not have children. Well, I drove what I wanted, ate what I wanted, and fathered four terrific sons. I'm glad i ignored the Malthusians then, and unless I am presented with reliable and verifiable evidence to the contrary, am ignoring them now. BTW, Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring" in 1962, and based on shoddy science, DDT was banned. Result: 100's of millions of unnecessary deaths by malaria.
  60. Peter Lucas from Langley, Canada writes: KSW, I believe that a UN report suggested that global warming would be a net positive for Canada. It seems unpatriotic, therefor, to reduce my carbon footprint.
  61. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: So elders are seeing new species invade their territory... Flashback after Greenland had been green for generations -ref: the Globe and Mail today!!!-, the ancestors of these elders MUST have seen the disparition of many species... But then there was no Federal Governmant to lobby for ca$h and no one was there to say that climate change comes from GHGs and the 0.038% concentrated CO2...

    Models:
    Ian St John writes: "Climate models don't predict anything. They give 'scenarios' based on assume changes in inputs to give us some idea of the consequences of the different scenarios. As such they are useful but they are hardly 'prophecy'." Isn't that what you base your claims on most of your posts?
    Bob Beal:, update your hockey gear dude: Le Mouel, Blanter, Schnirmann have published recently a refutation of the Jones temperature curve... the hockey stick BS. In Fact they show only oscillations from 1900 to 1987 and then a brutal elevation of 0.6 celsius in 1987. It is stable with oscillations since then. Nothing to do with CO2 concentrations...
  62. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Well, it appears that we've moved on from discrediting the science to simply throwing our hands in the air and saying "We'll never make it so why even try?" or alternately "There are bigger problems out there"

    Seems like a reasonable, and intractable position, and, more importantly, seems like a vindication of the scientific view point!

    GlynnMhor of Skywall I'm glad you brought up the solar activity issue since in this week's Nature they summarize a paper finally laying that to bed:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html

    Martha Stewart, I'm glad you do your part for the earth out there in the country, but you do fall prey to the myth that urban people are bigger polluters than people who live in the country. The exact opposite is true.
  63. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Here is the sheep herd mentality at its best: "Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: Steve S: I have gone through this before when I post on climate change stories. I am not a scientist. I am a historian. Aspects of climate change have interested me for a very long time in my own field. The "Little Ice Age" matters in some things I have researched and written about. As a concerned citizen, I am interested in the current situation. I have done my best to research it, as a non-specialist. It is obvious to me, as it should be obvious to anyone who takes a look, that the very great majority of experts in the various fields keep saying, and more strongly saying, that human activities, particularly burning fossils fuels, have and are causing a dangerous rapid rise in global temperature. There are some naysayers among the scientists who know what they are talking about. But those are relatively few. I know where I place my money. I used to go to the horse races. If you bet on a 100-1 longshot (unusual in horseracing and much shorter odds than betting on the climate change naysayers), and it comes in, you would win a great deal of money. I would rather bet on the obvious favorites." Yeah betting on the obvious favorites is what science is all about... if your own research is based on this principle, must be quite ground breaking... NOT! Finally labelling scientists who do not subscribe to the Human Induced GW theory based on rising concentration of CO2 "climate change naysayers" or "deniers" assumes that there is and should be no debate, that the question is solved and that the gogospiel according to IanStJohn is the truth. You may howl in the wind but beware, the wind of science can change too! There is nothing wrong in informing yourself but truly that's not the reasons you give here Bob...
  64. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Mr Fijne, are you talking about the underground weather records of Le Mouel et al. as compared to the surface temperature records of Jones?

    It seems fairly clear that the two would be different.
  65. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Also Mr. Fijne, your jokes clearly point out that your thinking is at least 10 years out of date (Wayne's World came out in 1992, sorry, that makes it 15 years out of date).

    Seriously who uses "NOT" as a joke anymore? It's all about irony and randomness these days.
  66. martha stewart from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: Sorry martha - growing trees is still net zero - the carbon is released when you burn it or when the trees decay.

    So why are so many environmentalists pretending that planting trees matters? That's what some of these carbon offset scams claim to be doing with the guilt taxes they collect. CO2 aside (where it belongs), trees have other functions. The disappearing snows of Kilimanjaro, which the global warming crowd was trying to use as a poster child, has been shown to be related to local land clearing. On a hot sunny day its obviously much cooler in a shady forest than in a clearcut or a cow pasture.

    You add: "Lomborg was fully debunked in Scientific American for the layman years ago."

    Saw, read that. First time ever they did that. Methinks they protest too much. Ever heard of Galileo? Familiar with groupthink?
  67. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Dave Arthurson, Borat moment... LOL
  68. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave Arthurson from United States writes: "Martha Stewart, I'm glad you do your part for the earth out there in the country, but you do fall prey to the myth that urban people are bigger polluters than people who live in the country. The exact opposite is true."

    Dave - Please explain why, if you can.
  69. martha stewart from Canada writes: Gee, no one has commented on my post about the Croll-Milankovitch theory and the ice core evidence of earlier rapid climate changes. I wonder why?
  70. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Martha: Comparing Galileo's conflicts with the church to the current climate change debates may be a somewhat popular tactic. Recently there has been more and more criticism about those who believe in AGW as a religion, but this argument is specious.

    The advantage that AGW has over religion is that there have been a number of challenges to AGW including solar forcing, statistical methodology, the role of the various greenhouse gasses, "cherry picking" data, &cetera. In each case further study has shown that the theories underlying AGW are sound and that, when flaws are found in the theory, these flaws can be corrected and models can be made more precise.

    Religion cannot do this. We may turn the observation on it's head and compare those who oppose climate change to a religion: Arguments devolve from sound scientific critiques to ad homenim attacks (which, admittedly we in the AGW camp are not above as well), arguments based on ignorance (the classic "weatherman" argument) and comparisons to cults.

    I would suggest neither comparison is fair.
  71. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Marhta, a few things: People in urban centers tend to drive less and own smaller cars, use public transit more, have smaller homes, eat out more (surprisingly energy efficient!), in addition, urban centers help concentrate populations so the per capita energy expenditures of servicing the population tends to be lower.

    2. The Milankovitch cycles tend to predict sudden shifts into ice ages and gradual transitions out of them (with some rapid changes here and there). Based on these cycles we should be about 6ky into a 23ky cooling period right now. That's why no one commented on your post, because it seems to bolster the AGW side.
  72. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave Arthurson - I think you are being rather naive about the workings of the scientific establishment and academic politics. It is not the objective process you describe. And for the masses, this is a new religion - the latest spinoff of the religion of environmentalism, complete with its version of original sin (four legs good, two legs bad), its constant use of fear and guilt, and its shunning of non-believers. And, of course, its TV evangelists. Although I am a lifelong conservationist, I am totally opposed to the zealots of environmentalism because it is a fundamentally anti-human religion. And the gross hypocrisy of most so-called environmentalists only strengthens my (well educated) opinion.

    Since you don't like my Galileo analogy, how about Orwell's 1984?
  73. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Calgary, Canada writes: "GlynnMohr - if the growth rate is predicted to be 2%, a 3% reduction in the growth rate means that the growth rate will be 1.94%."

    The predictions are for an effect of negative 2%-3% of GDP, not of just a slowing of growth.
  74. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Dave Arthurson: So what is the origin of climate changes before the 1800s? thanks.
    The Scientific community who's wondering if they should stop research now...
  75. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Lying again. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm"

    Go to the actual Chapter 12, figure 12.7, from where that summary report comes, and read the legend admitting that their sulphate aerosol effects were done 'interactively'. In other words, it's not the model that is successfully operating to match the observations, but interactive tweaking of sulphates that does it. As I said, just like advertising a car that steers itself, but seeing in the fine print that it only works with a human steering it.

    Read your own sources, Ian.
  76. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Climate models don't predict anything. They give 'scenarios' based on assumed changes in inputs..."

    Exaclty, Ian, and that is why we should not be committing staggering amounts of resources in the Kyoto process based on the 'predictions' of climate modelling.
  77. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Can you rationally expain why you think moving to alternative fuels, more conservations and lower emissions would be 'economic suicide'..."

    If the fuel cost increase for such things is on the order of 100% or more, and if the capital cost is horrendous, and if the 'move' is conducted by artificially imposing fuel shortages, then yes, it amounts to economic suicide. This doesn't even include sending huge amounts of money overseas to buy artificial 'carbon credits' from countries whose emissions per unit GDP are even higher than ours are.
  78. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Stringer's Smarter Cousin from London, Canada writes "If you are trying to imply that there is a correlation between sunspots or solar cycles and global warming, that simply is not true. See: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650 "

    Your source offers no data whatsoever on the matter, other than a graph demonstrating that the sun's overall activity level is higher now than it has been in the last 1000 years. The entire site actually appears to be a political 'talking point' page.

    Look at the data yourself. You can google any cycle with 'sunspot cycle 22' for example, and see the Hadley centre's global temperatures at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ to do your own comparison. Not trivial, to be sure, but it does reveal that, as I said, above, temperature changes correlate more strongly to solar cycle lengths than to any other factor, including GHGs.
  79. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bob Beal from Edmonton, Canada writes: "I'm sorry, but I chose to believe New Scientist..."

    Believe the actual data, Bob, not people who talk to you about the data.
  80. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Marhta, a few things: People in urban centers tend to drive less and own smaller cars, use public transit more, have smaller homes, eat out more (surprisingly energy efficient!), in addition, urban centers help concentrate populations so the per capita energy expenditures of servicing the population tends to be lower. >>> Quite the overgeneralization. Drive less? Only if they live and work in close proximity. Most cities have vast suburbs with streams of daily commuters. People who live and work on their land don't do this. Smaller cars? True to some extent but that's because rural people actually need trucks and SUVs to haul stuff and get through unplowed snowy roads. Use public transit? Yes, where available, SOME do. Not available at all in the country. Smaller homes? I don't think so. Eat out more? How does that food, or the diners, get there? Lower per capita energy use? Only if you only look at their homes and not where they eat or work - which are all included for rural folk. Lower energy service costs due to population concentrations. No doubt. As long as you don't account for where and how this energy was produced and delivered (e.g. how much land was flooded or excavated to produce the electricity). In any case, none of this adds up to your blanket "exact opposite" comment. And none of this accounts for the ecological benefits of the land that rural people own.
  81. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Dave Arthurson from United States writes: "GlynnMhor of Skywall I'm glad you brought up the solar activity issue since in this week's Nature they summarize a paper finally laying that to bed:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html"

    Since the article can only be accessed through a licence (or paying for it) I can't really remark upon it. I have seen lots of such that claim to eliminate all solar change forcings of climate, but invariably they 'cherry pick' some things and do not examine others.
  82. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave Arthurson from United States writes: "The Milankovitch cycles tend to predict sudden shifts into ice ages and gradual transitions out of them (with some rapid changes here and there). Based on these cycles we should be about 6ky into a 23ky cooling period right now. That's why no one commented on your post, because it seems to bolster the AGW side."

    I don't think you've got these details right. But in any case, the ice core evidence of earlier very rapid climate changes should put to rest the constant refrain from the Kyoto crowd that we have never seen such rapid changes before. As for extremes, what about the Antithermal? That period makes current changes seem like a hiccup - and maybe that's all they are.
  83. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall, I'm not really sure I understand what you're asking me to explain.

    Although if you would like lessons in palaeo-climate changes I would be happy to oblige.

    Martha: I'm not really a strict environmentalist either, and I agree with you about the decidely religious nature of deep ecologists for example, but that doesn't change the underlying nature of much of the science behind anthropogenic climate change. Aspects of this climate change paradigm have been chalanged again and again and scientists have been relatively quick to modify their models to encompass new information.

    The fact of the matter is that it becomes difficult to argue the facts when we are constantly bombarded with the same arguments. For example, your point about the Milankovitch cycles, which leads to the argument, if climate undergoes cycles, who cares?

    One is a truly scientific discussion (why have the cycles switched from a 41ky cycle to a 100ky cycle for example). The other is a somewhat specious argument.

    You may remember another board here yesterday where people were arguing that tropical trees on Axel Hidelberg (albeiot 55Mya, when it was at or around the equator) prove that climate change is normal. Many of these extreme examples are not intended to challenge scientific thinking, but to undermine the scientific discourse with insouciance, and unfortunately it works.
  84. martha stewart from Canada writes: I wish I was a Native. Then all I would need to do is ask some elder and that would be the end of the story - and no one would dare question this "traditional knowledge" lest they feel the wrath of the political correctness police.
  85. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: Hi again Martha, I'm pretty sure about the Milankovitch stuff, but I really ought to be working so I'll leave it for now. Suffice to say, the Dryas events are pretty neat examples of extreme and rapid climate change that appear to be linked to a shutdown of the North Altlantic current once Lake Aggasiz drained.

    So unless you know of any huge lakes that are about to drain. . .

    I'm not sure what you mean by the anti-thermal, is it the same as the Younger Dryas (12kya?)
  86. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave Arthurson from United States - Well, we'll have to pick up this conversation later. But no, the Antithermal was not the Younger Dryas - was later and lasted longer. Will dig up more specifics and hope to catch you on some other forum.
  87. Dave Arthurson from United States writes: I'm surprised you'd doubt that country houses are bigger than city houses, considering all the apartments in large urban areas. The average city dwelling falls somewhere around 1500 sq. ft. in the United States wheras the average country dwelling is ~2500 sq. ft. and a higher proportion share walls with other homes, reducing energy costs.

    GlynnMhor, sorry about the link, I was worried that might happen. I'm not going to copy and paste for fear I'll get arrested. If we're going to argue cherry-picking there's really no point in arguing. At what point does data gathering stop being cherry picking?
  88. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dave - Thought you'd left! Get your point but another overgeneralization. Ever been to Calgary? Monster boxes in suburbia as far as the eye can see. In contrast, people who use wood heat tend to balance house size with wood hauling. Most of the monster houses in the country in our vicinity are second homes built by urbanites, apparently in some reaction to their more cramped normal abodes.

    And oops, its the Altithermal - spelled it wrong off the top of my head. Was about 6000-8000 BP, major drought conditions in the North American interior. Google away! Lots of interesting references to its impacts on early North Americans and wildlife in G.C. Frison's book Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains (1991, Academic Press).
  89. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - So condescending! If this was a purely scientific issue I would take your critique more seriously. {snip} WITH AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RISING RAPIDLY BY ~7 C OVER JUST DECADES. Further ice and sediment cores from around the world are demonstrating the global scale of these major climatic events."

    The total global* temperature change between the depths of the ice ages and the interglacials was only 5C according to well documented science. I don't know why you think making silly claims makes you 'smart'.

    To have a *global
    chage of 7C (over 10 times the measured global change due to GHGs) would take a nearby supernova to supply the energy. How do you propose we missed it and how did it cool off so fast afterwards? You scientific illiterates are all alike. To you anything is possible because you think that it's 'magic'.

    P.S. I underrstand Milankovitch cycles just as well as you do or better. However they remain a hypothesis.

    "There is apparently nothing new under the sun... "

    So point to the time in the distant past where Ooogahhhkk and his friends pumped 8 billion metric tons of CO2 into the air every year... Guess there is something new then..
  90. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - I didn't write that (about the 7C change) - I just copied it from the journal article I referenced. You'll need to debate that with the author. Never claimed to be "smart" but I am well educated and well read. But really: "You scientific illiterates are all alike"!!! Once again, you are being rather condescending, don't you think? After all, we are debating about something that NOBODY knows for certain.
  91. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Anyone selling stuff telling people the past is irrelevant to explain it is a fraud. They cannot explain the past in a satisfying manner so they chose to ignore it... Now Milankovitch is about to get a bad rap from Ian StJohn since the poor guy did not write papers about GHG Global warming... Meanwhile St John, seasons are caused by the slight variation of sun energy and light during a solar revolution that is still taking about a year. I am sure that GHGs will change that soon... Model it quick, publish and get a grant: Any calls from the Nobels yet? LOL
  92. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "martha stewart from Canada writes: But in any case, the ice core evidence of earlier very rapid climate changes should put to rest the constant refrain from the Kyoto crowd that we have never seen such rapid changes before."

    I decided to reference on of thise studies.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/4/1331.pdf
    "Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas"

    It says notrhing about global. We are talking about changes such as the Youger Dryas which certainly made for rapid change over large areas but due to changes in ocean currents, not a global change in temperature.

    "As for extremes, what about the Antithermal? That period makes current changes seem like a hiccup - and maybe that's all they are"

    It is a hivckup all right in 'geological' terms in a world that hasgone from 'frozen over from pole to pole' about 600 mya to the 'Paleocene Thermal Maximum" 55mya where temperature probably rose 9C globally.

    On the otrher hand in terms of OUR health, weath and investments it is a disaster.
  93. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - You concluded that "in terms of OUR health, weath and investments it is a disaster."

    I think you mean it could be a disaster in the future, if current predictions come true. Lately warmer weather has allowed me to spend more time outdoors, which is healthy. And investing in companies that benefit from this perceived crisis has been highly beneficial to our wealth. We are adapting to climate change.
  94. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: "Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: They cannot explain the past in a satisfying manner so they chose to ignore it... Now Milankovitch is about to get a bad rap from Ian StJohn since the poor guy did not write papers about GHG Global warming..." My what silly crap. I'd explain you but all I have to go on is your episodic droolings and gibbering posts. Perhaps you can only be explained by finding out which whore birthed you and how drunk your father was? Lets make that a 'requirement' for health insurance so the doctors don't waste time trying to diagnose you with a fever unless they also know your birth weight and how long it took you before you stopped wetting the bed. "St John, seasons are caused by the slight variation of sun energy and light during a solar revolution that is still taking about a year." And are somewhat sensitive to changes in overall warming and cooling since a small difference on a day to day basis makes a large difference in 'degree days' and how deep the ground freezes. Thus how long the ground stays frozen before 'spring' arrives. "I am sure that GHGs will change that soon... Model it quick, publish and get a grant: Any calls from the Nobels yet? LOL " I turned it down. Didn't want you to think I was bragging.
  95. Ian St. John from Toronto, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - You concluded that "in terms of OUR health, weath and investments it is a disaster."

    "I think you mean it could be a disaster in the future"

    No. I consider it a 'slow motion disaster' but we are already feeling the pain today.

    "if current predictions come true. Lately warmer weather has allowed me to spend more time outdoors, which is healthy."

    West nile is getting more prevalent so I dispute that it is 'healthier'. I usually find winter activities are less likely to cause disease from mosquito bites or ticks. Just my opinion of course. I am sttill a bit uncertain about the 'hydrogen sulfide extinction' mechanism but if it turns out to be valid, we're likely scr**wed http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/397

    "And investing in companies that benefit from this perceived crisis has been highly beneficial to our wealth."

    Unfortunately there are still a lot of 'buggy whip makers' that refuse to adapt.

    "We are adapting to climate change. "

    Slowly and with maximum pain and minimum benefit. Not because we want to but because we get driven into it.
  96. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ian - Isn't all adaptation ultimately due to necessity? I have no doubt that we will reduce our use of fossil fuels because we will have to.

    No West Nile virus where we live - yet, at least. I'm more worried about the impact on birds than on people, and the impact of the pesticides they use to eradicate it. Total human cases now less than lightning strikes.

    But a question about your post to "Mr. Fijne": how do you so clearly separate changes in temperature from changes in ocean currents. Isn't it all one big interactive system? Isn't that the real lesson that ecology tells us? That's how I understand it. And that's why I have no faith in the current predictions - they do not, and cannot, factor in the feedback mechanisms that are activated by change. We just don't know enough yet.
  97. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Here is a complete and pure BS from Ian St John responding to Martha: "http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/97/4/1331.pdf "Ice-core records show that climate changes in the past have been large, rapid, and synchronous over broad areas" It says notrhing about global. We are talking about changes such as the Youger Dryas which certainly made for rapid change over large areas but due to changes in ocean currents, not a global change in temperature." ICE cores of course are the culprit since there are no ICE cores in the tropics... so it says "nothing about global" according to Homer Simpson from canaduh! Next is about Mosquitoes, and that one is really a bad example since the specialist on that question has repeatedly slammed the IPCC for their inflammatory statements and slammed the door to boot ,about the spread of mosquitoes: I guess ISJ doesn't know mosquitoes are everywhere in northern latitudes... Oh and now comes Ian StJohn's real story, of course, "On the otrher hand in terms of OUR health, weath and investments it is a disaster" woaw, doom and gloom... finally it's all about money and guess, who's going to pay for the doom and gloom scenario... the rich for sure, who else? At least Bob Beal said he was a historian not a scientist: who are you Ian St John? Some former poster with another ID... A computer guy? A frustrated weatherman who wanted finally to be right predicting the weather? LOL

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top