Earth's Hot Potato

Earth's Hot Potato

There are 19 comments on the Canada.com story from Apr 21, 2011, titled Earth's Hot Potato. In it, Canada.com reports that:

Greenpeace protesters place banners on the west and centre blocks of Parliament denouncing Canada's inaction on global warming in December 2009 as UN climate change talks got under way in Copenhagen - and later ended in disagreements and stalemate.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Canada.com.

Peralta de Peralta

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#1 Apr 21, 2011
What credible scientist still believies in Global Warming? Oh, I forgot. Now it's called Climate Change, a very thin verbal veneer used by eco-liberals like GreenPeace forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php... . NOTE: The climate is constantly changing & has been as long as there's been a climate. And since these so-called 'scientists' can tell what caused past climate changes [that would be called base-line data that they just don't have], just exactly are they supposed to be able to predict what will or won't cause future changes to the climate? ANSWER: They can't. It's smoke & mirrors in an attempt to control us & what we do while foisting the costs off on us.

Climate Refugees, Not Found
Discredited by reality, the U.N.'s prophecies go missing.

"In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental scientist Norman Myers.

Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#2 Apr 21, 2011
FuGyou tells us that the cause of 'past climate change' is well known and that human emissions of CO2 can be the only cause of current warming.
LessFactMoreHype tells us:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react.
Other points of interest:
-
1990 IPCC prediction, 4.5 to 6.0 C temperature rise by 2050.
1996 IPCC prediction, 0.8 to 3.5 C rise by 2100 - less than half the warming in twice the time, begs the question, were the models improved?
A U.S. government survey of the global climate model literature predicted even less warming - between 0.5 to 2.0 C by 2100.
-
Current warming is unprecedented?
12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit in approximately 50 years.
Miroco

Plano, TX

#3 Apr 21, 2011
The root article needs to be so long and tedious because it is so filled with factual error. It does admit that virtually every prediction was wrong but it goes on to say they will be right this next time. It gets worse, European countries have ways --- blah blah blah--- which countries, what ways and concludes US and Canada will fall behind. A total misrepresentation and Spain has gone broke trying these left wing theories.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#4 Apr 23, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
What credible scientist still believies in Global Warming?
Pretty much all of them. The credible ones that is.

http://tinyurl.com/2f9m3gh

Hope that helps. THe rest of your rant didn't make much sense. Some of it has already been explained as not a product of the IPCC. But you probably only hear what you want to agree with. Credible science doesn't affect you at all.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#5 Apr 23, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
FuGyou tells us that the cause of 'past climate change' is well known
Maybe should be 'well enough' known. It is certainly not up to the level of quality of current instrumentation which gives us knowledge of AGW to an unprecedented accuracy. But we cannot know if the higher 'climate sensitivity' they rather consistently show is due to underestimating 'long term feedback' effects, or due to differences in the geology or geography of the planet back then.
Earthling-1 wrote:
and that human emissions of CO2 can be the only cause of current warming.
He never said that. Nor has anyone else other than the DENIALISTS. It is the usual Dirtling 'strawman' based on his OWN distortions.
Earthling-1 wrote:
LessFactMoreHype tells us:<quoted text>Other points of interest:"CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react."
Yes. It is called 'thermal lag'. When you have a forcing of only 1.5 watts per meters squared, and you have a thermal mass of about 150 metres of soil or 600 meters of ocean, the time to come back to 'equilibrium' is probably in the decades to centuries (depending on how 'close' you want to specify). But a lot of the warming happens during the initial period where the imbalance is highest. But of course, with a CONTINUING change the lag tends to stabilise and the change occurs at about the maximum rate. Of course, that is still slow since the thermal mass is high relative to the heat flux.
Earthling-1 wrote:
1990 IPCC prediction, 4.5 to 6.0 C temperature rise by 2050.
1996 IPCC prediction, 0.8 to 3.5 C rise by 2100 - less than half the warming in twice the time, begs the question, were the models improved?
I note that you never quote anything as recent as 2001 when AGW theory became established and the math was all worked out to the degree that scientists could quote the figures. The 'early guesses' were all over the map as expected for the beginnings of research.
Earthling-1 wrote:
A U.S. government survey of the global climate model literature predicted even less warming - between 0.5 to 2.0 C by 2100.
I find those figures just as unlikely as the more extreme ones. The best guide we have is paleoclimatology which shows how the planet HAS reacted in the past and this runs to about 3.5C+ for a doubling. Of course, the amount of warming is ALSO depending on how many times we double by 2100. I suspect that the 'government survey' got such numbers from a forecast of GHG emissions that does NOT equate to a doubling (560ppm) by 2100. Thus you spin and spam by comparing apples and oranges.
Earthling-1 wrote:
-
Current warming is unprecedented?
12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit in approximately 50 years.
We cannot measure time for deglaciation that finely and your figure is impossible anyway. The GLOBAL temperature is only about -5C for an ice age vs an interglacial so it could NOT have warmed by 20C AT ALL. I suspect you of having another brain fart.. you say SOO many silly things.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#6 Apr 23, 2011
Miroco wrote:
The root article needs to be so long and tedious because it is so filled with factual error. It does admit that virtually every prediction was wrong but it goes on to say they will be right this next time.
Actually it doesn't discuss prediction (forecasting) at all. Its main point is to keep the change to under 2C.

IF you saw what the world is likely to look like with the likely 4C warming from a doubling, you would want to keep the change under 2C (the point at which climate change becomes highly disruptive) too. http://tinyurl.com/yb467z5
Miroco wrote:
It gets worse, European countries have ways --- blah blah blah--- which countries, what ways and concludes US and Canada will fall behind. A total misrepresentation and Spain has gone broke trying these left wing theories.
Your 'political analysis' is as goofy as your science analysis. The article is correct in terms of what it says ( on politics and policy). And Europe has done the most of all the world to reduce the problem. Time that Canada and the US grew up (and got rid of Stephen Harper, the poster boy for dirty and irresponsible industry)

Some things I would object to in the article due to slanted emphasis and not accuracy.

"People say, well, Canada is a big country, it's a cold country, and it requires a lot of heating.".

No. It requires a lot of INSULATION. A lot of heating would mean waste energy not warm shelters.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#7 Apr 23, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
Oh, I forgot. Now it's called Climate Change..
No. AGW is a separate subject. AGW is the fact that the increases in GHGs (primarily but not exclusively CO2) are causing the global planetary temperature to rise.

The EFFECT of this rise on temperatures is called 'Enhanced Climate Change' or 'AGW Induced Climate Change'. Do not be fooled. The climate changes a fair bit by itself due to long period oscillations. But that is separate from the 'AGW Induced Climate Change' which changes are imposed ON TOP OF these natural changes.

The term is a bit clumsy, so most people shorten it to 'climate change'. Unlike the solid science of AGW, this is an area of high risk becuase it is mostly unknown and the chance of a 'tipping point' change having disasterous consequences to society and the global economy is a real threat. On top of that there is the 'gradual change' which induces 'adaptation costs' and new threats such as changing ranges for disease and disease vectors.

One reason the politicians have decided to call it 'disruptive climate change' to try to educate the public that it is not the tempeature that is the problem or that it might snow in September, but the COSTS and DANGERS of climate change to the economy and peoples lives.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#8 Apr 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
THe rest of your rant didn't make much sense. Some of it has already been explained as not a product of the IPCC. But you probably only hear what you want to agree with. Credible science doesn't affect you at all.
Never let the opportunity to insult someone go to waste, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#9 Apr 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
He never said that. Nor has anyone else other than the DENIALISTS. It is the usual Dirtling 'strawman' based on his OWN distortions.

I suspect you of having another brain fart.. you say SOO many silly things.
Never let the opportunity to insult someone pass you by, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, then accuse the opposition of using ad hominem.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#10 Apr 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Your 'political analysis' is as goofy as your science analysis.
There you go again, like a moth to a flame.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#11 Apr 23, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
We cannot measure time for deglaciation that finely and your figure is impossible anyway. The GLOBAL temperature is only about -5C for an ice age vs an interglacial so it could NOT have warmed by 20C AT ALL. I suspect you of having another brain fart.. you say SOO many silly things.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Check out the 4th graph. Approx 20*C increase in temps from the Greenland ice core data. Because of precession, the wobble, Greenland ice core data is more indicative of the climate experienced in the NH.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#12 Apr 23, 2011
Peralta de Peralta wrote:
What credible scientist still believies in Global Warming? Oh, I forgot. Now it's called Climate Change, a very thin verbal veneer used by eco-liberals like GreenPeace forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php... . NOTE: The climate is constantly changing & has been as long as there's been a climate. And since these so-called 'scientists' can tell what caused past climate changes [that would be called base-line data that they just don't have], just exactly are they supposed to be able to predict what will or won't cause future changes to the climate? ANSWER: They can't. It's smoke & mirrors in an attempt to control us & what we do while foisting the costs off on us.
Climate Refugees, Not Found
Discredited by reality, the U.N.'s prophecies go missing.
"In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental scientist Norman Myers.
Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274...
Only the 'credible scientist' who are funded to support global warming believe.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#13 Apr 23, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
Only the 'credible scientists' who are funded to support global warming believe.
You can't blame them for clinging to a reasonable income while it's available.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#14 Apr 24, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>You can't blame them for clinging to a reasonable income while it's available.
Most people will produce the 'work' the boss wants. We all do it for the income.

I don't think scientist like James Hansen are evil horrible people who are out to destroy the world as we know it. I think they believe. Unfortunately, they let their beliefs get in the way of science.

Belief changes how someone will 'look' at a situation. Instead of postulating a scientific hypothesis and seeing the results, believers look for those indications that support their beliefs and ignore that which is contradictory.

This happened when Hansen first produced the U.S. temp chart. He used a methodology that would produce the chart he wanted. It wasn't a methodology that was supported by generally accepted statistical analysis for this type of data, but it was a method that would produce his desired results.

That's why he refused to release his data and methodology. After being required to release the data, he had to change the chart.

Now the U.S. is not as warm as the 'rest of the world' has not warmed as much as the 'rest of the world' and achieved only 23rd place in the 2010 temp race well behind the 'rest of the world's' warmest ever designation.

Now if we could just get the people who determine the temps of 'the rest of the world' to release their data and methodology, we may get a surprise as to just how much we have warmed up or not.

Belief is powerful. Belief does not belong in a scientific study and should not be a part of scientific methodology.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#15 Apr 24, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
Check out the 4th graph. Approx 20*C increase in temps from the Greenland ice core data. Because of precession, the wobble, Greenland ice core data is more indicative of the climate experienced in the NH.
GLOBAL temperature you iterative moron. NOT Greenlands temperature. Of COURSE there are larger temperature swings around the ice sheets at high latitudes.

But the SUBJECT is *GLOBAL* warming and comparing the GLOBAL temperature change with the one in GREENLAND is stupid. You really are trying to earn a 'dunce of the week' cap aren't you?
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#16 Apr 24, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Only the 'credible scientist' who are funded to support global warming believe.
This is so dumb it deserves an award. Tell me when GWB 'ordered' the scientists to reverse their stand on AGW and how many did so.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#17 Apr 24, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Never let the opportunity to insult someone pass you by, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, then accuse the opposition of using ad hominem.
Insults have to be untrue. By definition, you cannot 'insult' a girl by calling her a girl, but you DO insult a boy by calling him a girl. For example.

Since what I said is true, it is, by definition, not an insult. Just truth.

Now, when are you going to grow up and start debating the issues?
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#18 Apr 24, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
GLOBAL temperature you iterative moron. NOT Greenlands temperature. Of COURSE there are larger temperature swings around the ice sheets at high latitudes.
But the SUBJECT is *GLOBAL* warming and comparing the GLOBAL temperature change with the one in GREENLAND is stupid. You really are trying to earn a 'dunce of the week' cap aren't you?
What was the temperature 12,500 years ago? What was it 14,700 years ago? How about 20,000 years ago? I am interested to know where you get your temperatures from that time period.

C'mon Less the average global temperature for 12,500 years ago.

Or will you just run away again.

LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#19 Apr 24, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
What was the temperature 12,500 years ago? What was it 14,700 years ago? How about 20,000 years ago? I am interested to know where you get your temperatures from that time period.
C'mon Less the average global temperature for 12,500 years ago.
Or will you just run away again.
Of course we don't have an global reconstruction of temperatures for millions of years in the past. That is party the point.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals...
"During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5 degrees Celsius colder than they are today."

That is why SCIENTISTS using the best available data from around the globe can only say 'probably'.

But the point is that the SPECIFIC claim was bogus sicne it compared temperature rise in a specific location to global temperature changes. Totally different beasts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Japanese reactor radiation detected off B.C. coast Aug 24 thanh 5
News Global warming to drive quadrupling of extreme ... Aug 18 POHM 3
News Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix 'perve... Aug 17 pazuzu 11
News Officials solve mystery of explosion on Rhode I... Jul '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News New research maps out trajectory of April 2015 ... Jul '15 Kate 1
News Pope urges revolution to save Earth, fix 'perve... Jun '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 30
News Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation Explains Glob... Apr '15 SpaceBlues 1
More from around the web