Shovelling 'global warming'

[Avro]

Nowhere in the article does Mr. Goldstein says he agrees with the scientific "consensus". He even added the quotations.

I'll quote Mr. Goldstien if you only understand things in quotes.

This is an e-mail he sent me when I forwarded him an article that I posted here about the lies the denier group spews out titled fibs, frauds and liars......you can find that post at the following link btw.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/science-environment/72016-fibs-frauds-whoppers.html


Now the e-mail, titled debunk this, with a link to the article posted on john Moore's web site.

Since I've never said global warming is a hoax there's nothing to debunk.


This is what I wrote in my latest column on Sunday:

The scientific "consensus" on climate change is simply that man-made greenhouse gas emissions, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas), are causing warming beyond what naturally occurs because of the greenhouse effect. While the impact on climate, and thus on us, will be significant over time, there are substantial disagreements, and great unknowns, about what the precise impacts will be, how severe, where, when and most important, what we should do about it.


Uh ... read much?

This is what Mr. Goldstein responded with.

Sorry about your luck Walt.

Read his articles more closely as he is very ambiguous about it but he does agree with the scientific consensus just not the solutions.

Perhaps the print isn't big enough for you old boy.

 

[Just the Facts]

Why would they grow faster?

Go ahead, make my day.

Why wouldn't they? It's really pretty well established and not particularly controversial.

 

[Avro]

Why wouldn't they? It's really pretty well established and not particularly controversial.

C'mon just say it.

 

[Tonington]

Well, lets say people don't trust the results I found on Science Direct. Is there any other way to depict the simplistic problem of more CO2 =more growth?

Eureka! How do we know it causes growth? The photosynthetic reactions, both light and dark, utilize the carbon atoms as part of the electron transport chain. We perhaps know it better for the production of a molecule of sugar. Is there something else missing? Like I said earlier, water.

6 CO2 + 12 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O

Anyone remember high school chemistry, specifically, a limiting reactant? Well to put it simply, the limiting reactant is the chemical which controls how far the reaction can go. For instance, if we have 6 moles of carbon dioxide, and 12 moles of water, we can get 1 mole of glucose, 6 moles of gaseous oxygen and 6 moles of water vapour.

If we add more carbon dioxide, without more water, what happens? You don't have enough reactant to finish the products.

Assuming that more water will accompany more carbon dioxide is not a straightforward assumption. You don't know that the precipitation or soil moisture will increase at the same time, in fact it could increase overall, but happen during the winter when the plants are dormant, and can't utilize it.

 

[Just the Facts]

Assuming that more water will accompany more carbon dioxide is not a straightforward assumption. You don't know that the precipitation or soil moisture will increase at the same time, in fact it could increase overall, but happen during the winter when the plants are dormant, and can't utilize it.

More water will make things grow faster too. Well, tomatoes, anyway. :smile:

It makes sense that anything that's growing faster will produce an increase in demand on all other elements of it's constitution. No big surprise there. A six foot corn stalk needs more water to survive than a 3 foot corn stalk. I can live with that.

 

[Tonington]

Right, and that's my point. In order to grow faster, it must have all required nutrients in abundance, not grow faster then increase demand. That's why you water your tomatoes when there isn't enough rain. Unfortunately, we can't ensure all plants on this planet are getting that attention.

 

[Just the Facts]

Right, and that's my point. In order to grow faster, it must have all required nutrients in abundance, not grow faster then increase demand. That's why you water your tomatoes when there isn't enough rain. Unfortunately, we can't ensure all plants on this planet are getting that attention.

No argument there. But still, the point remains, they need more required nutrients in greater abundance because......

 

[#juan]

From whose pockets were those tens of thousands of scientists eating back in the sixties and seventies when legions of flower children were being taunted to "Get a Job" by some guy in a smokestack industry? Gee ... I hate to say I told you so....

Woof?

Wolf that was really dopey. The scientists we are talking about are the working meteorologists, and climatologists from around the world. Did you somehow think these people were standing around on welfare, waiting to make a statement about climate change? Hell, airliners wouldn't fly without them.

 

[Tonington]

No argument there. But still, the point remains, they need more required nutrients in greater abundance because......

...we're giving them more CO2 than they can utilize.

 

[lone wolf]

Wolf that was really dopey. The scientists we are talking about are the working meteorologists, and climatologists from around the world. Did you somehow think these people were standing around on welfare, waiting to make a statement about climate change? Hell, airliners wouldn't fly without them.

And that was really judgemental when you're applying todays problem to yesterdays attitude, Do learn to read before making yourself look silly. That's back in the days when more doctors smoked Camels than any other brand....

Woof!

 

[#juan]

And that was really judgemental when you're applying todays problem to yesterdays attitude, Do learn to read before making yourself look silly. That's back in the days when more doctors smoked Camels than any other brand....

Woof!

For God's sake!

In February, 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Reporttitled Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. This most recent research from the IPCC concludes that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver of this warming, asserting with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.

I'm not talking about the fifties or sixties, I'm talking about right now.

 

[lone wolf]

For God's sake!

I'm not talking about the fifties or sixties, I'm talking about right now.

Of course you're talking about right now. We're human and leave everything until the very last second. I'm serving up a reminder that people (like a young scientist named David Pearson for one) were calling attention to the long term effects of air pollution way back in the sixties - long before the desperate panic we're in now - and being dismissed by the science of the day as doomsayers and nuts. Fifties or sixties? Earth science is about eons - not a few piddly decades.

Woof!

 

[Walter]

For God's sake!

In February, 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Reporttitled Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. This most recent research from the IPCC concludes that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver of this warming, asserting with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.

I'm not talking about the fifties or sixties, I'm talking about right now.

What do you expect government hacks to say; they won't bite the hands that feed them.

 

[Walter]

Cool the climate hysteria

'Every generation needs a holier-than-thou, ideological mantra ... to wrap themselves virtuously'

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Global warming is the gift that keeps on giving to climate hysterics.
For those already pre-disposed to being anti-western, anti-development, anti-growth, anti-capitalist and most of all, anti-U.S., it's the perfect propaganda tool.
After all, as they screech, the survival of the Earth itself is at stake and they alone are on the side of the angels. They alone care about the legacy we will leave our grandchildren.
To this crowd, the rest of us are "climate deniers," in a league with the devil, in the pay of Big Oil and out to destroy ... uh ... ourselves.
Even better for climate hysterics, they will never be called to account for their simple-minded campaign to demonize fossil fuels, which is aimed more at arbitrarily controlling human behaviour -- and for so-called "green" politicians, raising taxes -- than reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
That's because everyone alive today will be dead long before we know how much of the scientific "consensus" on global warming is correct.
Over the short term -- and when talking about climate change, this means considerably longer than the life span of everyone now on the planet -- we know that no matter what we do, GHG emissions, which are cumulative and last for anywhere from 50 to thousands of years in the atmosphere, will continue to rise for many decades, along with global temperatures. That would be true even if we were reducing emissions now, which, for all the shouting, we aren't.
But beyond that -- and that there will be a significant impact on climate, and us -- the scientific "consensus" touted by climate hysterics abruptly ends.
HUGE UNKNOWNS
There are huge unknowns, competing theories and debates within the scientific community about what will happen, where, when and how severe.
The insistence of climate hysterics (and opportunistic politicians) that the debate over anthropogenic global warming is "over" -- aimed at replacing rational decision-making with "do as we say" diktats -- is laughable.
If it's "over," why are governments still spending billions of our tax dollars researching it, dwarfing anything spent by the fossil fuel industry, which climate hysterics would have us believe is funding anyone who doesn't bow before them? The reason for all this publicly funded research is because of all that we don't know.
But what we do know is that what the hysterics claim, that virtually any weather phenomenon today is "proof" of man-made climate change -- harsh winters, mild winters, dry spells, wet spells, more snow, less snow, heat waves, cold snaps, you name it -- is nonsense.
The climate is always changing and was changing long before we arrived. Plus, weather isn't climate, something hysterics (and pseudo-green media) mention when it suits them, ignore when it doesn't.
Ultimately, responding to global warming is a political issue.
In that context, as retired U.S. foreign service officers Teresa Chin Jones (who holds a doctorate in chemistry) and David T. Jones, wrote perceptively in their 2007 article "The Zen of Global Warming" (available at AmericanDiplomacy.org):
"It appears that every generation needs a holier-than-thou, ideological mantra ... with which to wrap themselves virtuously, while belabouring their opponents as the political equivalent of demonically possessed ...
"Pick your weapon/words and come out slanging. In this regard, the Kyoto agreement and global warming have become among the most knife-edged shibboleths of the current culture wars.
"To complicate matters, global warming and its political surrogate (the Kyoto accord) appear to have become aspects of bilateral differentiation between nations -- distinguishing the moral, environmentally-conscious, energy-conserving Kyoto cultists, from the right-wing, gun-toting yahoos and Kyoto-deniers epitomized by the United States."
POPULATION IS INCREASING
They argue for a pragmatic approach -- energy conservation and industrial innovation to develop alternative energy sources, based on the precautionary principle that, regardless of global warming theory, we know the Earth's population is increasing and that non-renewable energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas) are precisely that -- non-renewable.
"In short, we do not need a new 'Crusade'," they conclude, "but rather, a new Industrial Revolution."
Exactly. One based on technological innovation, that climate hysterics -- their Luddite heads filled with dangerous notions that humanity can be returned to a pre-industrial, pastoral state -- will fight every step of the way. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[#juan]

What do you expect government hacks to say; they won't bite the hands that feed them.

Completely childish reply. Walter if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, we could debate about the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses and the corresponding rise in global temperatures, but ignorant one-liners are not debate.

 

[Walter]

Completely childish reply. Walter if you had the slightest clue what you were talking about, we could debate about the increasing concentration of greenhouse gasses and the corresponding rise in global temperatures, but ignorant one-liners are not debate.

I ain't so smarts as you thinks i'se is/

 

[Walter]

March 14, 2008

Reality Check On This Year’s Cold and Snowy Weather - Implications For Global Warming

Filed under: Climate Change Metrics — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
There has been considerable discussion with respect to whether the large number of cold waves and snow this winter in the Northern Hemisphere and last winter in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. see Dot Earth and the several excellent posts on this subject at Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and ICECAP). They have accurately described this very unusual weather over vast areas of the Earth including the recent sharp cooling in the troposphere. This is clearly climate variability that has not been accurately captured by even the seasonal weather prediction models, much less the longer term global climate models.
Global Warming, of course, is just a subset of the more general issue of climate variability and change. Nonetheless, the political focus has been on global warming using the global average surface temperature trend as the metric.
Climate Science has repeatedly emphasized, however, that the proper way to assess global warming (or cooling) is with diagnoses of global average ocean content; e.g. see
A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement
Important New Paper In Press by Willis And Colleagues On Sea Level Rise And Ocean Heat Content Changes
The recent cooling in the atmosphere does not demonstrate that global warming has stopped for multi-year time periods. It does, however, highlight a major failing in that the multi-decadal global model predictions (and even the seasonal weahter prediction models) have predicted no such behavoir.
Moreover, as reported on Climate Science, global warming requires a more-or-less monotonic increase in the accumulation of heat (in Joules) within the climate system. The use of a global average surface temperature, regardless if it is increasing or decreasing is an inadequate and inaccurate metric of global warming as the heat is not only a function of temperature but also mass over which the heat change occurs! This is why the ocean is the dominate reservoir of heat content change.
With respect to the change in upper ocean heat content, as reported on a Climate Science weblog on February 15 2008, the paper
Willis, J. K., D. P. Chambers and R. Steven Nerem, 2008: Assessing the Globally Averaged Sea Level Budget on Seasonal and Interannual Time Scales. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans (in press),
reports on no upper (700m) ocean warming since 2004.
Thus while we cannot state that the recent widely distributed cold waves or overall cooling of the troposphere are evidence of the end of global warming over decadal and longer time scales, we can state that global warming has not occurred in the last 4 years. This is a major issue for both climate science and for policymakers, as only those who blindly (or deliberately) ignore the scientific evidence can still accept the 2007 IPCC conclusions as settled science.

 

[Avro]

Let's clear the air here

Climate denier? Oil industry shill? Moi? Nah. Cutting through the bunk? You bet

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

fctAdTag("bigbox",MyGenericTagVar,1);dcmaxversion = 9dcminversion = 6DoOn Error Resume Nextplugin = (IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." & dcmaxversion & "")))If plugin = true Then Exit Dodcmaxversion = dcmaxversion - 1Loop While dcmaxversion >= dcminversion
It's amazing what gets you labelled as a climate denier and/or oil industry shill these days.
For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:
That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.
That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.
I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.
I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy.
These aren't radical views. From the overwhelmingly positive response to my columns, I'd venture to say many Canadians share them.
However, in the bizarro world of the climate hysterics, I'm evil incarnate.
For one thing, I don't support the Kyoto Accord, which really is, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it, a socialist, money-sucking scheme.
Worse, it's a scheme whose purpose is not to lower man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
China's skyrocketing, coal-fuelled GHG emissions alone over the next few years -- exempt from Kyoto because it's a developing nation -- will more than wipe out all GHG reductions prescribed by Kyoto, even if the few dozen developed nations to which they apply, including Canada, achieve theirs. Many, including us, won't.
That's just China. India and the rest of the developing world are also exempt.
The United States, either the world's largest or second-largest GHG emitter, along with China, depending on whose figures you use, is unaffected by Kyoto because it has refused to ratify the treaty dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration. Yes, you read that right.
Leaving aside the developing world, even if every Kyoto target in the developed world was hit over the next four years, it would represent about one-twelfth of what the science says needs to be done.
Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular.
Beyond that, the scientific "consensus" on man-made global warming breaks down once you start looking at how long it will take, how severe it will be and what we should do about it, which is not a scientific decision but a political one.
Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."
They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing.
Given their concerns about GHG emissions, they irrationally oppose nuclear power, which does not emit them.
EXTREME WEATHER KILLS
They act as if there were no hurricanes or glacier retreats before mankind started burning fossil fuels and that extreme weather never killed anyone before industrialization.
They confuse carbon monoxide, a poison, with carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth.
They insist we know far more about climate than we do.
They aren't interested in saving the planet, they want to control human behaviour.
They are the worst sort of people to put in charge of anything -- ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous, often hypocritical.
They can, however, write e-mails.

Sorry old boy but even your hero believes in climate change just not some of the solutions.