Sounds good on the surface until you stop to think about how many people questioned the wisdom of the likes of nut cases like Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison. The majority aren't always right!
Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
Sounds good on the surface until you stop to think about how many people questioned the wisdom of the likes of nut cases like Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison. The majority aren't always right!
That is not the nessage and, if you think it is, then you are not reading or need to change your glasses. The message is that when the whole world of science is convinced by evidence and the application of the Laws of Physics that something is so, then a couple of sensational magazine articles and the mistaken predictions of a social scientist are of no contrary value.
Kakato might have looked a little deepr and he would have found that there were a couple of research papers that predicted cooling back in the 1970s. That would have been a credible posting.
But the fact is, that they were predicated on the observations of the time and the continued HUMAN influence of aerosols. From about 1980 there has not been a single credible paper contradicting anthropogenically caused Global warming.
Of course the majority is not always right. But you can be pretty sure that a majority of scientists researching the impact of immutable physical laws on climate and sowing the evidence obtained from observation and every possible type of measurement and coming to an consensus agreement are right.
Columbus et al had no such support going. Although, it had been known from the times of the early Greeks that the Earth was round and that here was land out there. There even very early maps showing something where Australia "swims."
It would take a revolution in particle physics to overturn the current scientific consensus on the existance of and human responsibility for Gloabal Warming and associated climate change.
Carbon dioxide does absorb longwave radiation in the wave lengths emitted by the Earth, ever increasing amounts of CO2, methane, nitrous oxides and other human generated greenhouse gases do in fact slow the rate of transfer of energy out of the Earth's atmosphere while incoming shortwave radiation which isn't quantized to be absorbed by greenhouse gases mostly passes through heating the Earth.
Same amount of energy coming in, less going out, what is the obvious conclusion?
The earth's atmosphere must heat up until the amount of energy leaving the planet is equal to the amount coming in, in the process the climate will change to accomodate the presense of a greater amount of heat to move around.
Unless someone comes along and rewrites physics at a basic level Global Warming isn't going to magically disappear by a bunch of hand-waving by people paid by companies like ExxonMobil to do just that. Slick PR may confuse the issue, it doesn't make it go away.
Carbon dioxide does absorb longwave radiation in the wave lengths emitted by the Earth, ever increasing amounts of CO2, methane, nitrous oxides and other human generated greenhouse gases do in fact slow the rate of transfer of energy out of the Earth's atmosphere while incoming shortwave radiation which isn't quantized to be absorbed by greenhouse gases mostly passes through heating the Earth.
Same amount of energy coming in, less going out, what is the obvious conclusion?
The earth's atmosphere must heat up until the amount of energy leaving the planet is equal to the amount coming in, in the process the climate will change to accomodate the presense of a greater amount of heat to move around.
Unless someone comes along and rewrites physics at a basic level Global Warming isn't going to magically disappear by a bunch of hand-waving by people paid by companies like ExxonMobil to do just that. Slick PR may confuse the issue, it doesn't make it go away.
I would go as far as to say "partly right", the percentage being in question. I think Mother Nature plays a much greater role and the basic cycles may have already been established and what man does just adds or detracts a tiny bit from it. "Scientist" itself is a bit of a nebulous term..............what makes a scientist?
There are cycles in nature; that goes without saying. Sometimes things happen that throw them out of their course. But those cycles are not inherently cyclical and without some external forcing they would go on for evfer without significant climate change.
However, climate isn’t inherently cyclical.
Internal variability moves energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina., This is not a not a cause climate change. Changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth as rebel described. For that there must be external” forcings. Changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical.
Since there have been no external forcings: no Milankovitch cycles that are the source of Ice Ages. No increase at all in Solar output and, in fact, a reduction that might have resulted in a small cooling effect, nothing in nature, the warming of the planet since about 1950 can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
The only source of those GHGs that has shown any increase is in those produces by us and the feedbacks to those.
It is all down to anthropogenically produced C)2. There is no other explanation.
Darfur used to have excellent irrigation and grazing land with really good beef. Somebody torched the grasslands, stopped irrigating and killed the cattle that fed the grasses.
Are you trying to say that under the liberals, Canada was actually doing something bout environmental issues?
Other than talking, why exactly was done?
Actually, Dion single handedly saved the Montreal Protocol from collapse. Canada led the world in framing the agreement that led to significant action to deal with the ozone crisis. Later, under the Liberals not much was done about climate change. That is, in part, because of the ridiculous division of powers in this country: nothing could be done withour provincial agreements and, given Alberta's oil dependency, just like today, nothing is done.
The Liberals had made some agreements with the provinces under Chretien/Martin. One of the forst acts of Harper was to cancel the little progress that had been made.
Nothing to stop Canada's 2 most populated provinces from leading the pack.... Maybe rethinking the massive flooding of valleys and arable lands, cleaning up the nuke facilities or doing something about the situation that witnessed them shipping down the residential waste to the USA for disposal. Not every problem in the nation is linked to oil/gas extraction.
BTW - regarding your last post responding to my comments, you are of the practice of attacking the messenger and dismissing the source of the message rather than actually debating the message.
Unfortunate
I am not sure what the first paragraph is about. The second, I would think, you have backwards. You attacked my message with a deliberate misinterpretation. That is attacking the messenger.
Except that I am not a Harper conservative. Those of us that are true conservatives do our part to look after the planet. Preferably without destroying the economy for no good reason. My job is recycling. What do you do to make the world a better place besides Parroting truther propaganda ?
Funny,we cant predict the weather for tomorrow but we can predict what it will be in 100,000 years.
Dunno Kakato, they forecasted rain here three days ago and we got it in spades. :lol:
On another matter on C.B.C. radio last night I heard that most of the First Nations people affected by the Gateway pipeline are now in favour of it according to one person, my first reaction was it's bullsh*t, my second was they've been offered a piss pot full of money and/or jobs on the contruction. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
It's about this comment
Sadly, AB just produces the stuff, the biggest markets that we sell to in Canada (via the USA) is Quebec and Ontario... Ironic, non?
In actuality, the specific example of yours that I had in mind related to the 'magazine articles' that he had posted regarding global climate crises. It seemed that there were 'peer reviewed' papers (for whatever that's worth these days) that provided the same message/results, but you offhandedly dismissed them as the source (apparently) was not to your liking.
You wouldn't believe how green the Okanagan is this year, Petros, I haven't seen anything like it in over 40 years!