- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Get Ready for Nasty Weather
Canada must hurry to adapt to big climate shifts: expert.
Floods ahead, but a trickle of preparation.
If you've ever flown into Vancouver International Airport, you've probably never pictured, as the plane was setting down, what the tarmac would look like under two feet of sea water.
Gordon McBean, one of Canada's top climate scientists, admits that was precisely the image running through his mind when he flew into Vancouver last week.
"When do you start seriously thinking about when to put it somewhere else?" he mused in an interview with The Tyee.
"It's already at sea level at best."
Beyond the tarmac at YVR, McBean said the entire delta region of the Fraser River is in "a double-jeopardy situation" due to rising ocean levels plus the increased likelihood of storm surges, both of which threaten people who live and work in the area.
The outlook is getting bleaker by the year, he added; initial UN estimates on sea-level rise were "unduly conservative."
"It's rising along the lines of the most pessimistic track right now," said McBean, which means current diking systems are going to be put under a lot of stress in future decades. "You could have a half-metre sea-level rise by mid-century."
While not urging we hit the panic button, McBean does say, as a founding scientific member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that we've bickered long enough about the causes and the culprits of global warming. It's time to roll up our sleeves and cope with the consequences.
McBean takes part in a public dialogue on extreme weather events tonight in Vancouver as part of a four-year Simon Fraser University initiative called the Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT) and he spoke with The Tyee last week about the ins and outs of the emerging Canadian "adaptation" movement.
So far we're lagging dangerously behind.
Disaster-a-day
The rationale for adaptation is simple: the world's weather is evidently out of whack and, more concretely, weather-related devastation is on the rise. International treaties won't protect us from a climate run amok; preparedness and mitigation will.
Disaster damage has been doubling every five to seven years since the 1960s, said McBean.
Talk about the Weather
Dr. Gordon McBean joins a panel of experts to discuss extreme weather events at SFU's Fletcher Challenge Theatre tonight, June 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm. The event is free of charge, but seating is limited. For more details please visit ACT's website.
Determining how much of that damage is related to global warming is tough; factors like the global population explosion, increased exposure of human habitation and the widening divide between the rich and the poor make it difficult to say. Nevertheless, since 2000 there has been an average of one weather-related disaster per day, a disaster being defined as when a community is overwhelmed and requires outside assistance.
"If you go back to the '60s or '70s, instead of having 360 per year, we would have had maybe 60," explained McBean. These days, however, more than 75 per cent of the disasters around the world are triggered by weather, as opposed to the geophysical events like earthquakes.
Severe Natural British Columbia
Most British Columbians don't need to look past their own back yards to find a vivid example. They've seen firsthand the drought in the Interior; experienced the torrential rains and boil-water advisories in the Lower Mainland; survived the Kelowna and Barriere fires of 2003; flown over the endless sea of red and dead pine trees from the beetle epidemic; lamented the devastation of Stanley Park. The writing is on the wall, even if skeptics still downplay the link between these events and greenhouse gas emissions.
"Statistically, these kinds of events are becoming more likely," observed McBean. "The climate of the future is definitely not the climate of the past."
But at what point do we start thinking about moving homes, farms and businesses to higher ground, he asked. And how are we going to adjust the current maze of infrastructure, industry regulations and government policy to contend with a new climate paradigm? The questions are just beginning to be posed and the answers are still a ways off.
That reality has generated a lot of interest and activity in the scientific community, but McBean says there's a glaring problem when it comes to the nuts and bolts of adaptation in Canada and around the world. It just hasn't sunk in for the majority of people.
Talking feds
A major part of the problem is the current political system. A carbon atom sticks around in the atmosphere for upwards of 100 years, whereas democratic governments normally hold office for an average of four. Translation: there's little incentive in a democracy for elected leaders to do something when there will be no tangible advantage for the party or the politician for the next election. McBean has had cabinet ministers ask him to his face what their interest would be in tackling adaptation.
Still, he cited former Manitoba premier Dufferin Roblin and his unpopular plan to build the Red River floodway around Winnipeg as a great example of political foresight and will.
"When Duff Roblin put it up it was called 'Duff's Ditch' and 'Duff's Folly.' But it has now been shown that that $60 million investment, or whatever it was, has saved in the hundreds of millions [in averted flood damage]."
In any case, the absence of political resolve dovetails with the current policy vacuum regarding adaptation, in fact the two are mutually reinforcing. In a nutshell, McBean underscored that the age-old "who benefits and who pays?" quandary requires an informed debate to shape future policies across all levels of government.
Take, for example, the fact that the costs of protecting communities against flooding -- the building of dikes, floodways, etc. -- are currently borne by municipalities. If a major disaster overwhelms a community, however, the provincial government pays up to a dollar per person in relief. With roughly 3 million people living in B.C., the province would pay roughly the first $3 million in aid to an affected community. After that, the feds and the province split the costs fifty-fifty, and if the disaster is truly huge the feds would chip in even more.
"So the municipal manager is saying 'Why would I put this money into [flood prevention]? If we get a really bad hit someone else is going to pay, or the insurance companies are going to pay.'"
At the same time, volatile weather is already straining the economy. Hurricane Andrew bankrupted a number of insurance firms in 1992, and McBean says many insurance companies are now withdrawing from certain high-risk markets.
New Orleans, Alberta
Canadian policy will have to adapt so threatened communities can reduce risks rather than run them. Especially since it's often the poor who suffer the most from bad policies and regulatory vacuums.
In the summer of 2000, for instance, a tornado swept a trailer park in Pine Lake, Alberta, leaving 10 people dead and 140 in hospital.
When McBean visited the site with a research team several years later, he discovered that the owners had rebuilt the whole thing.
"They'd managed to coax a new group of people to come and live in the same place. And they'd done absolutely nothing to make that trailer park a safer place to live. No horns, no shelter to run to, no tie-downs even at the trailers. And the manager wouldn't talk to us."
In a similar vein, during the 2007 flooding of the Fraser River, the First Nation community of Skway found themselves on the wrong side of the dikes erected with government money near Chilliwack.
How do we avoid the Canadian equivalent of New Orleans?
Farmer's Almanac 2.0
Fair and effective policies are only one side of what the ACT conferences hope to explore, said McBean. There's also a mountain of natural science research that needs to be first identified and then carried out in order to know just how to best cope with the coming changes. Last year, Natural Resources Canada started off in that direction by producing a paper on adaptation that summarized existing research and identified the kinds of hazards Canadians can expect to face in coming years.
But he says the kind of science that would help farmers "has been largely shortchanged or not done at all."
Scientists also need improved models for predicting what's going to happen, first with the climate itself and then in ecosystems, said McBean.
"As we get down to say what's going to happen on the Fraser River or Vancouver or Kelowna, we don't have the level of confidence, yet, to give general broad guidelines to how the changes will take place."
Super citizens
Even if it's increasingly clear that adaptation is the missing piece of the puzzle, it's still pretty technical, wonk-ish stuff. What can the average person do?
McBean has a simple response: sustained political pressure.
There have only been three times in Canadian history where the environment was a top-of-mind issue: in 1970 with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, during the ozone and acid rain debates of the late '80s, and now with greenhouse gases.
Cue the conferences, the flurry of government activity, the international accords and the like.
"But as soon as we get these things into place, the popular support drops, and the political interest drops even faster."
McBean, for example, was recruited by the Liberals for their newly created environmental department in 1971.
"I was told 'Hire anybody you want.' I hired a bunch of people and a year later I was told to let them all go because the government no longer had any money for it."
Why? "Opinion polls didn't show it mattered," said McBean.
Since 2007, however, polls show Canadians care: "We now have a prime minister at least making speeches of how important it is to take action of climate change, but it remains to be seen what they'll do."
Related Tyee stories:
- Rough Weather Ahead (series)
How global warming will hit BC. - Can Dion Snag the New Eco-Voter?
His carbon tax push is well timed, says pollster. - 'Chump Factor' Holding Us Back
People ready to sacrifice if they don't feel alone.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- BC snuffs out AirCare test program
- AFN national chief Shawn Atleo to launch re-election bid
- Citizens group releases video to fight undead Bill C-30
- Conservative MP says he might vote against budget, then 'clarifies' his position
- Genetically modified plants won't take root with councillors in Richmond, BC
- Hundreds at Vancouver rally to support Quebec students
- Could Fort Mac become an eco-tourist hotspot?
- Rick Hansen's Man in Motion anniversary tour concludes in Vancouver
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- 'A Gut Feeling'
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Does BC Stand for Ban Clotheslines?
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- Death in Remand: A Jail Crammed with Risk
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- Double lung recipient dances on Ellen show
- ISS astronauts grab DragonX space capsule by the tail with Canada Arm
- Metro Vancouver gas prices peak at record levels
- Ottawa posts $9-billion deficit in March despite pledge to avoid spending spree
- BC phases out AirCare to focus on fighting bigger vehicle emissions
- Tsunami senors to be dropped into deep sea off of Vancouver Island
- Student groups file court challenge against Quebec protest law
- ...while on the streets, pirates and ninjas put aside mutual animosity to join student protests
82
Login or register to post comments
Crawford
3 years ago
1970 environmentalism
You're right about the burst of BC environmentalism circa 1969-1972--I was an early member of SPEC, and recall meetings at SFU where we were warned that the oil would be gone by the 1990s. And yes, environmentalism did fade out.
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, however, was published a decade earlier, in 1960. Not having been in Canada then, I can't say what impact it had here. In the US, its influence was like James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time: very strong in a very small group of New Yorker readers.
Thanks for a very good article.
Jeffrey J.
3 years ago
DeSmogBlog
Every day I visit the Tyee and read excellent journalism. And every day, I visit DeSmogBlog. Which is the best Canadian website available for daily updates on the vast efforts by a small number of elite corporations to deny global warming. Reading the articles and videos of this site day in, day out, will astound readers at just how determined the big oil and coal industry is to risk the health of civilization for more profits (see website below).
http://www.desmogblog.com/
It is really quite mind boggling to realize how truly disturbed these industries have become. It also indicates exactly how much effort it is likely to take to put an end to their dangerous and anti-social behavior.
Great article.
ME2
3 years ago
Crawford
I too was a member of a small SPEC group in my small town in '71-74, but because of our naivete and inexperience, we dropped the ball, even though our MLA Graham Lea (NDP) was very supportive.
But on the Charlottes at least, environmentalism did not "fade out" since the "Steep-slope logging" issue in Riley Creek (ca 1973-4 and now forgotten) was the first time DFO had issued a "stop logging" injunction. A local Haida, Charlie Bellis, and a newly-minted enviro group called Islands Protection Society (IPS), then jointly took the industry and Minister of Forests Tom Waterland to court over logging practices for the first time in BC - and won.
Right on the heels of the Riley Creek issue, and in the face of incredible odds, IPS then launched a drive for the South Moresby Wilderness Proposal (now Gwaii Hanaas) which lasted from '75 to '85, culminating in the Haida standoff at Lyell Island. This very bitter, hard-fought campaign, which saw the second flaring-up of the "War in The Woods" following Riley Creek, captured both National and World-wide attention.
That issue also saw the birth of Paul George's Western Wilderness Committee (WC2), BC's first activist enviro organisation, without which it is unlikely the Park would now be a reality. And incidentally, it was Paul who has shown following enviros how to do it, which IMO needs saying, since he is rarely mentioned as being one of BC's environmentalist greats, which he is.
snert
3 years ago
I'm sorry
But it's statements like this that fall into the category of scaremongering that throw any valid arguments about climate change out the window.
It has nothing to do with scepticism but certainly smacks of the big lie technique used for population manipulation.
In this case the 'writing on the wall' is more like graffiti than truthful art.
Stump
3 years ago
I say what?
Ignoring the facts because someone else overstates them smacks of idiocy.
mopled
3 years ago
Ignoring the signs of cooling
"Robert Felix the author of 'Not by Fire...But by Ice' a book and a web site , has been studying GLOBAL COOLING and the new ICE AGE which is what is actually happening, since 1991
Watch this and other global cooling videos, ice core sample charts & timelines, gas concentration graphs, sunspot & earth orbit cycles etc."
The lecture is in 3 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68SgTnAx5I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKL1i-j9NIM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK1yPfZl2v8&NR=1
When in the 1970s a new Ice Age was predicted, it was said all that was needed then was more moisture. We're getting it now.
Canis Latrans
3 years ago
the evnvormental holocaust deniers...
The only Big Lie at work here is that being spread by these modern day, global corp serving deniers of the environmental holocaust evolving out of the "never ending growth" wake of these same global corps. The evidence really is there in your very own community backyard, just like Rafe says. You've just got to open your eyes, instead of keeping them closed so you can maintain your own ideologically driven status quo daydreams.
Good article, Rafe. Maybe more later, when I've got more time.
For sure the neocon flies will be here buzzing about shortly, looking to light and lay their creepy crawly larvae.
Canis Latrans
3 years ago
Global cooling, a contradiction???
Again, there is no contradiction, save for that being manufactured by those with an agenda served by denying reality. Half truths do not a full truth make.
The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…" (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
mopled
3 years ago
The Big Green Machine
Realclimate,was founded by Gavin Schmidt who works for James Hansen at GISS, NASA.
Fenton Communications, through an outfit it set up, Environmental Media Services, then set up RealClimate(Science, Dec.24,2004) to try to undo the damage done to the man-made global warming hypothesis by McIntyre and Mckitrick. The two Canadians demolished the "Hockey Stick" graph put together by another realclimator named Michael Mann.
RealClimate is still trying either to deny it ever happened or convince us that it means nothing. This, in spite of the fact that no less a figure than Dr.Edward Wegman,the eminent statistician noted that Mann& Co didn't seem to know basic statistical principles.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=789
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322
Mann and Schmidt are hardly disinterested, objective scientists.
That graph was the only piece of evidence the warmists had to support the hypothesis.
With it gone and the true cyclical nature of warming and cooling once again apparent,
there is a certain amount of desperation exhibiting itself in the shrill denouncing of skeptics these days.
Desmogblog is run by a PR agency, not even by scientists.
BTW, Richard Lipsey, SFU economist who founded ACT, the outfit that is sponsoring tonight's talk, was the CD Howe's man in Vancouver in support of the FTA....just so you know who's who in the Green Zoo.
Oh, yes, did you know that CO2 is piped all over the US Southwest for pumping into oilwells to increase recovery. Alberta and Sasketchewan are planning "research" into CO2 sequestration....both have oil wells and would probably love to have their own CO2 pipelines, if they don't already.
CO2 has been a commodity for years and the "carbon sequestration problem" will probably be solved by paying Exxon and BP to take care of it for us.
Yet another profitable wrinkle in the scam.
http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/co2/supply_sheepmtn.cfm
I've got to admit to being awed at how well thought out this has all been and how easily people fell for it ...and how self-righteous they become defending the scam.
In reality, the AGW/CC dogma has cost us rainforest for biofuel production and increased poverty and malnutrition due to rising food costs. Nice going!
The latest Copenhagen Consensus found malnutrition to be the most important problem facing the world.
'Forget climate change, we should spend on nutrition'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4033272.ece
Fii
3 years ago
Just feel it~ the inconsistency
Well something is clearly up. I woke up today in Vancouver (Monday June 2nd), opened the door to let my dog out and wondered briefly if I'd slept for a few months and it was suddenly October... I ride to work year round and today, riding, was a "fall day". On the way home five hours later it felt a tad humid. I mean really, what the hell??
snert
3 years ago
Stump
If a fact is overstated doesn't it become fiction?
Stump
3 years ago
fact vs fiction
If I put a bowl of soup in front of you and tell you it's a bit spicy, but it turns out it's a lot spicy... does the bowl of soup no longer exist?
spark.1234
3 years ago
healthy debate
I'm glad to see there is some sceptisism going on with 'man made' climate change. There is a huge amount at stake as to whether we are causing warming or not. It is not just money, it is your freedom and free speech at risk.
For instance, a carbon credit card has been in the pipeline for years, and was in the UK newspapers today. This will usher in a level of control over your life which Stalin, Hitler and Mao would have been envious of. The government will be able to dictate exactly how many holidays we have, what garbage we can throw out, what type of car to buy.... every facet of our lives will be regulated under the guise of climate change. So before any 'useful idiots' jump on Al Gores bandwagon, I'd suggest heavily that you do your own research on both sides of this story.
Contrary to the idea that many greeners would like to project, there is still a healthy debate raging in the scientific community as to whether humans are the cause of climate change. Several facts to back this up:
- There is a petition online of more than 30000 scientists, phds and science students who state that they do not believe humans are the cause of global warming (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html)
- A uk head teacher won a court battle to not show the 'Inconvenient Truth' to his student because of 11 false claims in the film (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22560731-5007146,00.html)
- John Coleman, the founder of the weather channel is threatening to sue Al Gore for the 'biggest scam in history'. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud)
Please do your own research before you jump on board. There is a lot at stake here... our freedom is a lot to give up if global warming turns out to be untrue.
To put climate change discussion in the same boat as holocaust deniers is very dangerous. Climate has always been changing and always will. Are we the cause? - there's plenty of people who would debate either way, and if we're going to give up our freedom, we'd better be sure!!
G West
3 years ago
spark.1234
Sorry my friend this is all old news. Our goof friend mopled has been telling us this same stuff - same stories, same actors, same arguments for years. In fact, some of the things you mention have also been covered in Tyee articles.
It wasn't convincing then and it ain't convincing now.
You should talk to mopled - he has some 'neat' theories you haven't mentioned.
I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West
realisticman
3 years ago
Yaaawn
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Booker
3 years ago
Godwin's Law
You just lost the argument, spark.
snert
3 years ago
Stump: Not the bowl you told me about.
happy
3 years ago
Didn't take long
I burst out laughing when I read this on another thread
"Personal references and name calling aren't my forte."
My faith was restored quickly here
"Our goof friend mopled"
Thanks for making my day
G West
3 years ago
errata and apologies mopled
That reference to you as 'goof' was a typo.
The 'd' and the the 'f' are next to each other on the keyboard - what I intended was this:
'Our good friend mopled has been telling us ...'
Cheers,
G West
RickW
3 years ago
mopled
So tell me please, just how we end up with MORE moisture when things are cooling. Have you ever boiled water?
The last Ice Age sucked about 300 feet off the oceans. What kind of cooling could evaporate that much H2O........?
Stump
3 years ago
three poor example doesn't equal every facet
Spark:
Passports, visas and labour laws already regulate our vacations.
There's already rules concerning household garbage and laws concerning the legality of cars on the road.
You've described the present, not the future.
snert
3 years ago
Of sheep and lemmings.
Time for this link again.
http://www.info-cascades.info/
G West
3 years ago
Eceptionally poor example,
Eceptionally poor example, snert.
Lemmings don't commit mass suicide - the whole metaphor is bogus...
http://www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlife_news.view_article&issue_id=6&articles_id=56
snert
3 years ago
Who said anything about suicide?
Read your whole article. Jumping to conclusions as usual, you are.
G West
3 years ago
Not at all... If you'll
Not at all...
If you'll actually read what I wrote you'll see I was referring to your use of the word 'lemmings' that's all.
Simply a point of information - about the metaphor YOU used.
G West
3 years ago
And snert
I actually think this is a much more interesting discussion of a similar problem of generic misdirection:
http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/keith.chen/papers/CogDisPaper.pdf
enjoy.
snert
3 years ago
I see
You didn't object to the sheep.
With some editorialising thrown in, yeah.
G West
3 years ago
Nope
Not me snert - that's your department - I don't do irony.
I welcome respectful comment to my posts at Tyee.
G West
mopled
3 years ago
Old truths are not less true
Rick W., you assume heavier precipitation is not already happening.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Falling_Sea_Levels.htm
links to the stories at the site
Falling sea levels
The tiny country of Tuvalu is not cooperating with global warming models. In the early 1990s, scientists warned that the Pacific coral atoll of nine islands - only 12 feet above sea level at its highest point - would vanish within decades, swamped by rising seas. Sea levels were supposedly rising at the rate of 1.5 inches per year.
However, new measurements show that sea levels have fallen 2.5 inches since that time. Similar sea-level declines have been recorded in Nauru and the Solomon Islands. (London Telegraph, 6 Aug 2000)
.
Hmmmm. Sea levels are falling in the Pacific Ocean,
sea levels are falling in the Indian Ocean, sea levels are
falling in the Atlantic Ocean, and sea levels are falling
in the Arctic Ocean.
I somehow get the feeling that we’re not getting the full
story here.
.
Sea levels are also falling in the Maldives! (in the Indian Ocean)
See Sea levels are falling!
.
Sea levels are also falling in the Arctic Ocean
See Arctic Sea Level Falling
.
Sea levels are also falling in the Atlantic Ocean
See Atlantic Sea Level Falling
.
See also Antarctic Ice Sheet Growing – Sea Levels Falling Worldwide
8 Nov 06 - Antarctic Ice Sheet Growing – Sea Levels Falling
.
.
Claim that sea level is rising is total fraud
So says Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, head of the Paleogeophysics and
Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
See also Rising Sea Level Claim a Total Fraud
To answer your question,Rick W., the moisture comes from ocean evaporate and if Svensmark's work with CERN proves out, from lack of sunspots allowing more cosmic rays
to hit Earth.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/euxtv-on-cosmoclimatology.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=d2113c58-030a-4390-a12c-30f45d75dfa5&p=1
http://www.iceagenow.com/Sunspot_cycles_may_hold_key_to_global_warming_cooling.htm
And GWest, that silly dismisal dodge with Oh, we've heard that before is often not true and does not lessen the value of the information. And, you are not the only person reading this. Maybe others are not so stuck inside the false consensus that they refuse to examine valid information.
snert
3 years ago
Your words
Ironic isn't it?
ME2
3 years ago
Where the snow will come from, Rick
The signal event of Glacial Ages (not Ice Ages, Rick) is that snow builds up on the land in the Winter and doesn't melt in the Summers, thus forming glaciers.
Initially, this is the result of open water in the Arctic which provides the moisture for snowfall. Temperatures fall as a result of an increased albedo which is the result of increased and permanent snow cover in the Northern high latitudes.
This is the first stage of a Glacial advance (Age) as predicted by the Malankovitch Cycle. This cycle is driven by the Earth's position in relation to the Sun which undergoes a 40,000 year cycle corresponding to the Glacial Advances (of which there has been around 20 in our current Ice Age, itself only the third Ice Age in our planet's history)
It is theorised that we are at present at the very peak of the warming period facilitated by the maximum sunlight possible for high latitudes which marks the dividing point between the warm-up following our last glaciation and the cooling-down into the next. We are now poised for the descent down the curve into the next Glaciation, which will be driven by decreasing amounts of sunlight to the North.
So, if the theory holds, Northern Canada will begin year-round snow, get colder, and when the Arctic Ocean refreezes, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans will supply the necessary moisture for Northern snowfall, and begin anew the Glacial advance toward approx the US border.
It is important to note that in the lower latitudes. the sunlight phenomenon is too insignificant to affect temperatures, and affects ONLY the high latitudes.
How soon? That's anybody's guess, but if our climate is as susceptible to minor perturbations as now seems apparent, it may be sooner than we think.
spark.1234
3 years ago
G. West
Thanks for your concise yet factually bereft reply. As a wide open minded by-stander, my post points out that there is still a healthy debate going on between scientists. To say otherwise is to be almost religious in your man-made climate change fervor.
As a non-religious person, and as a lover of logic, I like to read facts and do some research for myself. Reading corporate sponsored newspapers and geo-politically involved bodies (i.e. the IPCC) is not high up on my agenda as they are not trusted sources in my opinion. In the same token, I'm not a climatologist, and therefore I do not pretend to know either way whether we are causing climate change or not. However, I am extrememly cautious about where this is leading us. I never underestimate the government's propensity for corruption or desire for control over the individual. When I read articles like this: http://www.bclocalnews.com/kootenay_rockies/revelstoketimesreview/opinion/18694739.html
it makes me wonder whether this is indeed a tax to help with the environment, or a thinly disguised attack on civil liberties and freedom of the individual. When I read things like this Tyee article, I question whether the trees in Stanley park falling over and landslides in North Van are CO2's fault. Did trees falling over or landslides never happen pre-industrial revolution? When did the phrase 'global warming' turn to 'climate change' anyway? Please feel free to reply with factual comments.
ubiquitous
3 years ago
mopled sez...
However, new measurements show that sea levels have fallen 2.5 inches since that time. Similar sea-level declines have been recorded in Nauru and the Solomon Islands. (London Telegraph, 6 Aug 2000)
Funny, I recently watch a programme on the BBC that states otherwise.
G West
3 years ago
Guess maybe you didn't
Guess maybe you didn't bother
to 'read' what I wrote?
Everything you posted was 'old' news - mopled's been saying the same thing here for months - no years.
Here are a few references for you:
http://thetyee.ca/Series/2006/08/10/RoughWeather/
Research away, it may take you a while to get up to speed, but you're gonna find most everything you want in the above items.
Cheers.
G West
RickW
3 years ago
mopled
The latest revelation about "glacial ages" is that they form very quickly, and not over the tens of thousands of years needed to evaporate 300 ft. of ocean by the heat source you name. So I ask you once again, what heat source could evaporate that much volume?
Also, a measurement of 2.5 inches cannot be determined with any measure of reliability, given the technology we have to work with as of today.
City Person
3 years ago
Falling Skies
Interesting that other posters quote the early 1970s. I remember, as an undergrad clearly my professors telling me that oil was going to run out "by 1985 at the latest" and that all the smog we were putting in the sky was going to cause an ice age by 1990.
And I believed it, too.
mopled
3 years ago
Rick, read about CERN's work
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003085.html
BTW,one inch of rain translates to 10 inches of snow.
It is not just heat evaporation which makes clouds. Also the oceans are heated by undersea volcanos, and it is the contrast between warm ocean and cold air that is important too.
Huxley said “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
Stop trying to catch me out, use your noggin,read the material and re-read ME2's last posting. There are many factors which contribute to changing climate, and CO2 is the least of them.
Ubiquitous, you hit the nail on the head..
Yes, you were told sea rise is enormous by
the BBC...and it turns out not to be true. [DELETED]
Stump
3 years ago
Keeping it simple
Climate change is easy to understand.
Go to a disco at 9pm when there's maybe a hundred people in there standing about looking stylish. Cool and refreshing.
Now go at 2am when 500 people have been dancing (expending energy) and the population of the disco has mushroomed. Not so cool anymore is it? Even with the a/c on high.
Earth is a disco. Dance yr little heart out now, because it's a helluva hangover tomorrow.
Frank
3 years ago
City Person
And I believed it, too.
And yet you support the carbon tax.
DSB
3 years ago
Get your thinking caps on ...
An important thing to remember is that it isn't merely action for action's sake that will be important in combatting global warming, but thoughtful action.
The author mentions a number of "natural" disasters in the article:
"...survived the Kelowna and Barriere fires of 2003; flown over the endless sea of red and dead pine trees from the beetle epidemic; lamented the devastation of Stanley Park. The writing is on the wall, even if skeptics still downplay the link between these events and greenhouse gas emissions."
While bordering on an alarmist tone, the examples also demonstrate the disaster of environment mismanagement. Pine beetles don't thrive in greenhouse gas emissions; they multiplied so quickly primarily because controlled forest burning had been brought down to a minimum - to save trees, for human good or for industry, it doesn't matter which.
Similarly, the Stanley Park trees weren't knocked down because winds were so outrageously strong, they were knocked down because they were weak and poorly ecologically supported - the area has been hyper-managed to preserve the park and a healthy influx of tourists.
There are plenty of good reasons to be concerned about the environment. Let me just say however, that it is completely possible for BC to better manage our environment and begin healing our air, water, and natural life.
This article worries me because it borders on the fear-pumping, poorly-considered articles that I would find in The Province or similar. Let's get positive, and let's get thoughtful about climate change.
City Person
3 years ago
Frank
Frank, of course I support a carbon tax. We should not be wasting a non-renewable resource like we do. We should also be taxing automobiles and home based on their CO2 output, as well. Canadians are some of the most prolific wasters of energy in the world.
The market is deciding anyway. GM announced four more plant closures today, ending in the 2008 model run. Guess what they make? Six litre V-8 gas guzzlers. More and more people simply cannot afford to use them as daily transportation.
GM has had 35 years, since the first (artificial, it turned out)"oil crisis" to get its act together. It still hasn't.
Frank
3 years ago
City Person
Answer me this, will you continue to support the carbon tax if the big polluters are exempt? And two, will you continue to do so if our emissions continue to increase?
Now, you seemed to imply in your last post that fears over global warming and peak oil were unfounded. How does that square with your support of carbon taxes or am I not drawing the right conclusion from your post?
Frank
3 years ago
City Person
If they hadn't sold those trucks and SUVs (a very lucrative market for GM) Toyota would have. Tundras look pretty big to me. 4 wheel drive Honda Ridgelines don't look like work trucks either.
The fact is GM would have stopped producing them anytime people stopped buying them. Your argument is with the consumer, not the company.
spark.1234
3 years ago
devils advocate
Those articles do not conclusively prove that global warming is man-made. There is still room for debate - see what I'm saying?
So 'Fraser River will surge over dykes' states that if the river floods as high as in 1894 and 1948 then the dykes would fail in multiple locations. In exactly what way is that proving that man made global warming is causing it? I will actually use that article for my side of the fence - it says pretty clearly that floods and disasters have been happening for a long long time. Still room for debate.
'Pumping blind' - good article, but it isn't able to quantify how much of the groundwater decline is due to population increase and how much is global warming. Quote of the article: "How long that can go on is anyone's guess." Not conclusive. Do I believe that groundwater is receding? - yes... Do I KNOW that it's due to man made global warming - not proven. Are there better proven problems with our water supply, such as privatisation and consequently in 40 years BC will not own the rights to its own water - yes. Still room for debate.
'Global warming's threat to BC: seeking solotions' - alarmist article sorely lack in proof that man made global warming is causing water shortages. In fact, the whole tone of the article suggest that water shortages are the result of over consumption. I agree with that. Is it man made global warming that is causing the problem - not proven. Still room for debate.
Do you have any more conclusive articles that will once and for all end the arguement? Who needs the right to free speech anyway?
City Person
3 years ago
Wrong, Frank
Frank, Honda and Toyota do not have all their eggs in one basket. Their other products are fantastically profitable and sell well all over the world. Where the US makers failed was they did not develop their entire product line. Now that their bread and butter is not selling, they are left holding the bag.
Partly true. Cheap gas, some of the cheapest in the OECD, is the reason that GM kept on producing and idiots, oops, consumers kept buying. Honda and Toyota have a complete product line to fall back on. For example, Honda is doubling capacity at Allison and Toyota is expanding at Cambridge. In fact, there have never been more auto manufacturing jobs in Canada than we have today.
Two of Canada's three most popular models are made right here and both, in manual transmission, qualify for the Eco rebate, which is proof that government can alter lifestyles with correct taxation and credits.
What we have now is a start, a first step on a long journey. It is by no means complete. Any government that has the courage to even go near the issue deserves credit. And you can be sure the carbon tax is here to stay and will spread all across the country.
Frank
3 years ago
City Person
Well, neither does GM. They do produce other vehicles. The point is that that market was so rich that even Toyota and Honda built vehicles for it. Vehicles that are quite popular I might add. And yes, the Ridgeline is built.
Now if you're a car company and the product that sells best for you is trucks and SUVs and its also the product that you make the most money on a per vehicle basis why would you call them idiots for building for that market? I call that a no-brainer.
Okay, I have you down for being an advocate for "social engineering". However, is it not hypocritical to decry tax money being spent on the poor while advocating tax money being given to people buying new cars?
You avoided the questions. So if the Campbell gov't were to tax me but not you they'd have your support as a "good first step"?
City Person
3 years ago
Corrections
Yes, they do. However, the do not produce vehicles that North American consumers want to buy, nor can they do it profitably.
Apples and oranges, Frank.
The Campbell government is going to tax me 2.5 cents for every litre of gasoline I buy, the same as you would pay. I however, do not need an 8 litre V-10 to drive to Safeway. I use less than 1000 litres of fuel a year. Said carbon tax is going to cost me $25 per year. I receive a $100 rebate so I come out ahead $75 a year. This is based on driving 10,000 km a year.
However if I drive said truck the same distance I will use approximately 4000 litres a year (if not more) Said carbon tax is going to cost me $200 a year, for a net loss of $100. If I drive 20,000 km a year, I will lose $200.
Of course, this is just a simple calculation and does not take into account the increased cost of transportation for food, etc, but energy conservation really does save money, resources and the environment.
Frank
3 years ago
City Person
As you seem to have forgotten them, I'll repeat the questions, they're not that hard.
Answer me this, will you continue to support the carbon tax if the big polluters are exempt? And two, will you continue to do so if our emissions continue to increase?
Now, you seemed to imply in your last post that fears over global warming and peak oil were unfounded. How does that square with your support of carbon taxes or am I not drawing the right conclusion from your post?
City Person
3 years ago
Life is not so easy, Frank
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
Frank
3 years ago
City Person
OFFENSIVE AND INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED.
G West
3 years ago
spark.1234
I'm not trying to convert you.
I simply pointed out that in the comments to those articles that mopled and a few other climate skeptics had already mentioned all of the skeptical stuff several times before.
There is also lots of information countering their claims in the comments too:
I simply pointed out that in the comments to those articles that mopled and a few other climate skeptics had already mentioned all of the skeptical stuff several times before.
I think the 'science' is about as decided as it's gonna get.
You decide for yourself - but don't operate under the assumption that it's simply a matter of 'logic'.
It isn't.
I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West
City Person
3 years ago
Even if
I agree with you GWest. While I think that the climate scare mongers are somewhat over enthusiastic, we as a society have to stop wasting resources like we do.
spark.1234
3 years ago
City Person
I agree with you City Person. We have to stop wasting resources like we do - and climate scaremongerers are somewhat over enthusiastic. Thankyou.
Wasting resources is a different topic than man made global warming.
spark.1234
3 years ago
G. West
In what way is this quote not an invite to learn more about global warming from those news articles?
The articles do nothing to provide a basis for an understanding of man-made global warming. On the contrary from your assertion that it's not simply a matter of logic, logical deduction is crucial to establish a causal relationship between man made global warming and the increase in natural disasters. Without logic, what are we left with? Faith?
RickW
3 years ago
mopled
10 inches of snow makes about 10th inch of ice, which is required for glaciers....
And cold air doesn't make for MORE evaporation from the oceans; it only makes for faster condensation. I did physics 101, ya know.
And I am not trying to "snow" you. But you make any number of presumptions, and leave great voids, leaping as you do from premise to premise.
We've had undersea volcanoes for thousands of years, and the oceans haven't dropped appreciably. So how many of these volcanoes would have to spring into existence to evaporate that 300 feet? And what would be the mechanism to bring turn these heat sources on, that heretofore have not existed, or have been in abeyance?
Just fill in the blanks, mopled, and maybe you'll gain a convert.
G West
3 years ago
spark.1234
I'd suggest you should read more carefully.
This is what I actually said:
In other words, as I would have thought you might have gathered there may be logical conclusions on both sides of this debate.
In a way it's like a legal argument in a course of law. I think the intelligent voter has to look at the evidence and decide on the basis of probabilities.
In the case of climate change I find the case for global warming is more empirical and more persuasive...on the balance of probabilities and taking into consideration the precautionary principle I find the case for global warming is made...as much as any predictive empirical research can make it.
It isn't just a question of competing questions that can be resolved by deductive reasoning.
Clear enough?
I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West
spark.1234
3 years ago
G. West
I find it ironic that you 'welcome respectful comments' while simultaneously riding your horse of self righteousness and clumsily attempt to insult the intelligence of those who struggle to decipher your poorly articulated rhetoric.
That aside, lets keep this civil.
I agree fully with you that the intelligent voter has to look at the evidence and decide on the basis of probablilities. If the intelligent voter looked at the evidence, that would be good progress.... because right now, the majority of people take corporate sponsored journalism to be admissable evidence. Logic must be used to discern what is good evidence, what is dis-information and what is false. Analyzing empirical evidence and deducing a conclusion is a logical exercise.
I have to disagree with you that the case for man made climate change is decided empirically and persuasively though. Empirically - yes, logical experiments with valid data and analysis - great. Persuasive? - No, I don't like persuasion, especially when making a decision on something that will have such far reaching consequences. Persuasion is at the basis of this article and the 5 others that you pointed me to. People are being persuaded on the basis of alarmist stories that are tenuously based on empirical evidence at best. They imply that there is a causal relationship between natural disasters and CO2 emissions from human activities whilst providing scarce evidence to back it up. In fact, they are predicated upon the presumption that we are to blame. That is like a detective approaching a crime scene with a suspect in mind. He is not objective - he will dismiss annoying evidence that doesn't fit nicely into his preconceived notions.
Fear is one of the best methods of persuasion, and these articles are doing a great job of fear-mongering. If I had a weak arguement, I would use fear to mold public opinion as well - it's far easier than creating a logical line of reasoning.
G West
3 years ago
Spark.1234 What, exactly,
Spark.1234
What, exactly, about my responses to your comments deserved this reply?
I told you I thought that it was possible to argue, from an empirical point of view, both sides of this case.
Did you read that?
I went on to say that, in my opinion, the majority of independent scientific judgment supports the conclusion that anthropogenic factors are effecting changes in the environment and influencing climate.
Did you read that?
Did I try to frighten you with my rhetoric?
I don't believe so.
I gave you my opinion - whether you agree with it or not is of no consequence to me - but I do get upset when someone makes uncalled-for and offensive personal remarks about something I wrote.
I'm simply not interested in someone who, instead of discussing his or her opinions, is committed to little more than slinging mud.
Please review the commenting code of conduct.
As for persuading you of anything, why would I bother?
I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West.
spark.1234
3 years ago
G. West
Oh please don't confuse the first passage with the rest of the post. If you would like specific phrases that compelled me to write that passage, I'd be happy to give them:
These are poorly disguised personal attacks. Please don't attempt to take the moral high ground on objective, impersonal posts.
It's a shame that the personal stuff got in the way since I agreed with you on a big portion of your post and I like healthy debate. Debate is healthy, no debate is unhealthy.
ME2
3 years ago
Rick W
Here's some more info from EC Pielou's After The Ice Age, in which she gives a brief overview of how Glaciations evolve.
Since I lent the book and didn't get it back, I'm recounting from memory.
There have been three Ice Ages in the Earth's history, at 800,, 450, and 1-3 Million Years Ago (MYA). They are relatively brief, lasting only 5-10 million years. They are caused by Plate Tectonics, when continental drift blocks off the oceanic circulation around one of the Poles, such as in our present case with the North Pole's Arctic regions.
The Glaciations which occur within these Ice Ages happen because without the warming effect of ocean currents, temperatures drop below a critical point, and become susceptible to minor perturbations in heat delivery from sunlight as predicted in the Milankovitch Cycle. It was in consideration of that possibility that people theorised in the early 80's that a shift to cooling could happen relatively rapidly.
And incidentally, when people try to compare CO2 levels in those warm times, which lasted perhaps 400 Million years, with our short, very variable Glacial times, I think they're deliberately faking it.
The ocean currents are driven by water heating in Equatorial regions, flowing Northward, losing heat and sinking, and then returning Southward. The best known of these is the Gulf Stream of the Atlantic, but similar currents operate in the Pacific and other oceans.
Thus the heat needed for the evaporation of seawater is not entirely dependant upon sunlight, but is also supplied by these warm currents which also warm the Northern Hemisphere.
Re the time needed for the build-up of snow for creating glaciers, there is plenty of time for this in the perhaps 20,000 years when the glacial build-up begins until the time when melting overtakes it again.
As far as I know, and barring argument over time lines, the above info is not argued over. What is for sure is that we are living in a time BETWEEN Glaciations, and any extrapolatios re climate MUST take that into account.
snert
3 years ago
Rick W
If 1" of water makes 10" of snow it should follow that as ice is less dense than water 10" of snow should result in slightly more 1" of ice.
FYI the maximum density of water occurs at 39.16 °F at a pressure of 1 atmosphere. That is above freezing. Ice has a density of roughly 9/10 of water so 10' of water should produce around 11" of ice.
Be that as it may the relative density of 10" of snow may not necessarily equal that of 1" of water therefore at some point in time your 10" - 1/10" theory may very well exist but only in a specific instance.
You must be a powder junkie because the usual glop that falls around here would certainly support mopled's theory.
ME2
3 years ago
more re glaciation.
I sent my post above to a friend who responded "Since we are dealing with today's global warming and not that of the past, what have glaciations to do with it"?
OK. Assume 20,000 years of cooling going into a glaciation, and then 20,000 years of warming up again to make the idealised 40,000 year cycle.
We KNOW we are about 19-20,000 years from the peak of the last glaciation, the Wisconsonian. There is no argument over that.
So we KNOW that in these last 19-20,000 years the Northern Latitudes have been gradually warming, right up to the present.
I have yet to see ANYWHERE any data that claims to tease out this NORMAL warming trend from that claimed for anthropogenic causes, CO2 cores notwithstanding.
Is there a Warmist out there willing to take that one on?
G West
3 years ago
Apparently spark.1234
You didn't see this:
errata and apologies mopled
Commentor
G West
1 day ago
That reference to you as 'goof' was a typo.
The 'd' and the the 'f' are next to each other on the keyboard - what I intended was this:
'Our good friend mopled has been telling us ...'
Cheers,
G West
Look back up the comment thread - you'll find it. Posted more than a day ago.
As for the rest of that comment - stating the obvious and asking someone to read again more closely is NOT a personal attack.
You'll know when I deliver a personal attack.
When you want to have a debate let me know, so far you haven't indicated any such inclination.
Furthermore, I'm a busy man - you're wasting my time.
I welcome respectful comments to my posts here at Tyee.
G West
RickW
3 years ago
The operative word is "sudden"........
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
"...a sudden shift into a new ice age..."
And "sudden" requires immense quantities of energy.............
All depends of whether you subscribe to the school of gradualism or catastrophism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism
http://www.catastrophism.net/
City Person
3 years ago
The Truth
GWest isn't self righteousness. He is simply correct about everything all the time.
Just ask him.
Sheesh!
spark.1234
3 years ago
G. West
Condescension: a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient.
he has some 'neat' theories you haven't mentioned.
Quote:
as I would have thought you might have gathered
Quote:
Guess maybe you didn't bother
Quote:
Clear enough?
realisticman
3 years ago
I Wither before His Magnificence
Frequently I too am reminded by GWest at how simple minded and irrelevant my comprehension is of all phenomena in the universe.
Oh how fortunate am I that West the Magnificent would even deem to acknowledge and recognize my insignificant existence.
We are truly privileged to move even at the periphery of his realm.
City Person
3 years ago
And
[PERSONAL AND INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
ME2
3 years ago
Rick W
The fear that the Gulf Stream was shutting down, bringing an ice age to Europe, was debunked by a site offered by a poster here, which showed other oceanic currents being more important for delivering heat to Europe.
Am I a catastrophist? I don't think so. I said the below re glaciation :
"How soon? That's anybody's guess, but if our climate is as susceptible to minor perturbations as now seems apparent, it may be sooner than we think."
In company with spark.1234, I despise the hype and alarmism, the scare tactics which accompany the CO2 GW propaganda. It was those things which made me doubtful in the first place.
If we were wise, we would be putting more money into research re glaciation than we do, but giving credibility to opposing ideas and data is always blocked by orthodoxies such as CO2 GW has become.
I found your explanation of water-snow-ice very logical, but would like to point out something you may have overlooked re Mopled's claim that 10" of snow = 1/10" of ice which is required for glaciers.
If one realises that glaciers are very windy places, and that at even well below freezing temperatures ice and snow will sublimate (a transition from the solid to gas phase with no intermediate liquid stage). then Mopled's claim is not so illogical after all.
G West
3 years ago
for your information City Person
I've just sent the following message to a Tyee editor:
I've pulled the offensive button on City Person AGAIN.
I assume you'll deal with this.
On the Nasty Weather story:
This is the third or fourth time this 'person' has implied I am a public servant. I'm not, I never have been and - even if I were, that kind of prejudice and character assassination has no place in any public forum - let alone one with ostensible rules about behavior.
G West.
spark.1234
3 years ago
G West
Condescension: a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient.
Quote:
Quote:
he has some 'neat' theories you haven't mentioned.
Quote:
as I would have thought you might have gathered
Quote:
Guess maybe you didn't bother
Quote:
Clear enough?
ME2
3 years ago
re "dialogue"
Yes, I agree with you, spark.1234, that his comments were inappropriate, but he is far from alone and far from the worst in directing those kind of comments toward that particular poster. Even so, "people who live in glass houses...."
Despite the foregoing, I believe GWest is entirely within his rights to protest the job blackmail quote (whether or not CP's assumption was correct) since this is a very insidious type of slander, and should not be tolerated anywhere, let alone on TYEE.
I commiserate with the moderators in their task of sorting out the differences between fair comment and mean-spirited chippiness, even while I wonder at the sometimes unevenness of the adjudication.
IMO, these threads are a valuable medium for sharing information and learning from one another's perspectives.
Just as important is putting our views before the many readers who just look in and do not participate, who should be the ones we REALLY want to convince. Brownie points may salve our egos, but when they revert to childish Nyah Nyahs, I think we lose the respect and most likely the attention of the onlooker - as well as the other posters.
And re respectful dialogue, and re learning from it, we should remember the old tried and true adage - "Know thine enemy" - for we MUST recognise our respective strengths and weaknesses.
ME2
3 years ago
No takers? Oh well....
I note that to date there has been no reply to the challenge I made above, namely :
"I have yet to see ANYWHERE any data that claims to tease out this NORMAL warming trend from that claimed for anthropogenic causes, CO2 cores notwithstanding."
"Is there a Warmist out there willing to take that one on?"
Surely the exhaustive "Science" assembled by the Goreists must have covered that little detail? Or is this just another undiscussable heresy ?????
zalm
3 years ago
ME2
I don't think I'm a warmist (whatever that is), but I have a strong suspicion that our knowledge of the science of warming is pretty sketchy - too sketchy to be making the kind of absolutist statements that both sides (warmists and deniers) are making.
I'm confused about your question, though. You state there are three ice ages (and I presume you mean 800 MYA and 450 MYA). Then you refer to glaciations with the last one ending 20,000 years ago. What's the difference? Are you suggesting glaciations are lesser beasts than ice ages? It's a distinction my old textbooks failed to make.
As well, I believe your proposition that the 40,000 year cycle of glaciation being composed of 20,00-year-long periods of steady warming and cooling is in error. I can think of no physical process in earth science that is that smooth. Rain is an excellent example - your humidity can vary or even increase drastically all day long, but it won't rain until the right combination of humidity and sudden temperature change (gradient) produces the necessary condensation. It's a predictable phenomenon, but only just barely, and it's certainly not at all "smooth".
I also suspect (without any foundation) that glaciation is a resultant and not a cause, just like weight gain in humans is a symptom of unhealthy lifestyle, rather than a cause of ill health. We might be better served studying the sources of temperature gradients, and seeing how various tipping points affect them suddenly, such as the sudden change in the El Ninos in the 1970s.
Care to give a little more detail on these items?
G West
3 years ago
Spark.1234
I'm afraid I don't agree. Go back to your first post, then read my response. This ping pong match has become far too attenuated for my busy schedule.
I'm not being condescending, I'm bored.
I started out being perfectly civil with you - instead of just reading the material I suggested you might find interesting and informative you decided to attack me. And you've been doing it ever since.
I'll ignore you in future - you clearly didn't come here to discuss anything. But, if you look at the offerings of a few other posters on this thread toward G West (in a completely ad hominem and random way) you'll understand I'm hardly surprised - you are not the first person to fail to understand that debate is about ideas and not personalities.
You won’t be the last.
Unfortunately, on that score, the moderators here are sometimes confused about the concept themselves.
I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.
G West
snert
3 years ago
Curiouser & Curiouser
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=9de7c2ee-56ea-49b2-9d2b-d31efcaafad5
spark.1234
3 years ago
G. West
Please take a reality check G. West. Your reply to my first post was condescending. It is the first quote in my list of condescending things you've said. Whether or not you were bored at the time of saying them, they remain condescending. It set the tone of the conversation to come.
Not true. I read the material in its entirety and critiqued each one with no personal references to you.
spark.1234
3 years ago
ME2
Points taken. Cheers.
G West
3 years ago
Nope, sorry, doesn't fit the facts spark.1234
After my friendly and casual post to your initial effort (as a new poster to this place) this is what you started out with:
(spark.1234)
Which is not my idea of a 'neutral' reply: And since then you've gone downhill.
The facts were in other articles of Tyee journalism - remember. I didn't provide the links initally but I certainly did later. Interestingly enough, the links were provided by the editors at the end of this article...they're still there. Anyone who read the original piece would have noticed the hotlinks at the end.
I treated you as though you were a person with a modicum of intelligence.
So, as I said, no lectures from you on 'personalizing' things. That was the very first line of your second post - I think I'm pretty clear on what kinds of 'logic' and ethics you're into.
As I said, I'll ignore you in future.
I welcome respectful comments to my posts here at Tyee.
G West
spark.1234
3 years ago
Quote: he has some 'neat'
: Condescension of mopled's theories and implicitly, the ones I had quoted.
Note, that condescension came before the 'facutally bereft' reply. I could also debate that the post was indeed factually bereft, with no personal undertones.
I don't mind if a person is condescending. I just find it incredibly hypocritical and therefore comical that a person is (possibly unwittingly) condescending, then attaches a signature requesting respectful comments to every post.
Irony: Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs
City Person
3 years ago
Worms
[DELETED. -MODERATOR.]
ME2
3 years ago
Zalm
Thanks for the response, Zalm.
There are no hard and fast timelines in geology, Zalm, approximations are the best that geologists can come up with.
The first thing of note is that the years into our present Ice Age, the Pleistocene Epoch, which began between !.5 and 2 MYA, is, as were the previous two, anomalies comprising in total perhaps 25 million years out of the previous 1 billion years. Our present Glacial Age of glacial retreats and advances, began in the Pleistocene.
The normal climate of the Earth's Northern latitudes, including the Poles, is temperate or sub-tropical, occurring for pehaps 400 million years at a time.
The reversion to colder climes occurs when Plate Tectonics sees the placement of continental masses (in our case) around the North Pole, thereby cutting off the circulation of North-South oceanic currents which normally warms those regions.
This loss of heat is enough to make Northern latitudes extremely sensitive to minor variations in the delivery of sunlight, as is posited by the Malankovitck Theory, to which I subscribe.
Whatever the cause, there is no arguing that the Northern latitudes have undergone a series of perhaps 20 glaciations since the onset of the Pleistocene, the latest of which, the Wisconian, we are now recovering from, while awaiting the onset of the next.
The 40,000 years, 20,000 in and 20,000 out, were approximations used for ease of explanation only. No one can give exact time-frames, even though the illustration itself is nevertheless accurate, and we DO know the height of the Wisconsonian was around 19,000 years ago.
Similarly, re the "20,000" years of our warming up, there are obvious "burps" in that progression, most notable for us is the recent Little Ice Age (LIA) from approx 1350 to 1850.
So, while the progression is inarguably from cold to warm, no one know the full story of how various climate elements interact, as ALL the climate modellers so far offered on these threads have been quick to point out.
And so when we are offered all the confusing and contradictory data from reputable scientists on both sides of the CO2 GW issue, the arguments then hinge upon The Precautionary Principle, which has come to be prostituted and perverted by Warmists and enviros in general far, far beyond its intended use.
I concur with Spark.1234 when he writes :
"Fear is one of the best methods of persuasion, and these articles are doing a great job of fear-mongering. If I had a weak arguement, I would use fear to mold public opinion as well - it's far easier than creating a logical line of reasoning."