Topic
Cut through the smoke, learn the facts, win debates. In eight easy lessons starting today.
'Earthglow' captured by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System sensors (NASA-CERES).
'White Rock 13' arrestee Lynne Quarmby on why she chose civil disobedience, and why she thinks you should, too. A preview of Friday's public event.
How to drive home the impacts of a warming province? Stephen Sheppard and his UBC team offer a glimpse.
[Editor's note: There's no bigger subject than climate change, and maybe none more important to understand. But too often it's a subject for arguments, when we need a reasonable discussion based on what's actually happening to the planet around us. We thought it might help to revisit the basics of what's going on in the air and the oceans, our human role in events, and what kind of future we can expect if we don't make some changes. So welcome to a first for The Tyee. Scientifically trained writer Eric Nadal has created a nine-part series made up of eight short, straightforward, simple to understand classes in climate change, followed by a quiz you can take -- with a certificate to hang on your wall if you pass. Climate Cadet? Gaia Geek? Smarty Boots of Atmospheric Science? Graduates are invited to put whatever they wish on their next job applications. And the planet will thank you.]
Part 1: The Physics of Climate Change
Most people know by now that we have been releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide, CO2, in the process of unearthing and burning coal, oil and natural gas to do things like make electricity, heat buildings, power machinery and propel our vehicles. It's also widely known that CO2 is a so-called "greenhouse gas."
But "greenhouses" don't necessarily sound so bad, depending on where you are, in what season. Plus, you may have heard that, even with all our fossil fuel emissions, there are still only trace amounts of CO2 present in the atmosphere: just four out of every 10,000 molecules in air. Surely a little added "fossil" CO2 can't have that much of an impact on things.
Well, yes. As it turns out, what CO2 lacks in volume it more than makes up for with formidable physical and radiative properties that make it the principal "thermostat knob" keeping Earth's climate in life's comfort zone.
CO2 gets its description as a "greenhouse" gas because, rather like the glass roof of a greenhouse, it traps a certain amount of heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape into space, thereby warming the surface of the planet.
How CO2 does this starts with the somewhat counter-intuitive fact that the Sun and stars aren't the only things in space that shine. Planets and their atmospheres do it too, radiating light in response to being heated up -- either by starlight or their own hot internal cores. Being so much colder than the Sun, they just radiate much less light, at much lower frequencies: mostly in the infrared range (the same "invisible" light that night vision goggles detect and TV remote controls use), rather than light in the range our human eyes can detect. You might say that, whereas the Sun beams its radiant energy "loudly" and in "treble," the Earth hums back "quietly" in "bass."
But for all its volume of high-pitched light, the Sun is very far away. By contrast, we have front-row seats to the Earth's low-frequency radiation. And even if we can't see the Earth's infrared light, we still feel its heat -- just as we might if we were sitting in front of an "infrared" electric heater from the hardware store. Some of that heat energy from the Earth's surface is next captured in the atmosphere, and again radiated out in all directions, including back down toward the surface.
As a result, we're cozily sandwiched between two immense sources of infrared light: the planet's surface, each square meter of which radiates an average of about 396 watts upwards, and the planet's atmosphere, which radiates 333 watts per square meter downwards (most common electric space heaters emit about 1,500 watts on "high"; 1,000 watts on "low" settings).
Click to see the original animation from PlanetSEED, a "volunteer-based, nonprofit education program" on science funded by Schlumberger, a leading supplier of data technology to the fossil fuel industry.
Now, back to CO2. It turns out that the main reason the atmosphere radiates so much infrared light is its carbon dioxide. Radiating such low-frequency light is a nifty trick that not every gas can pull off. In fact, neither of the two much larger components of the atmosphere, oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), can do this.
CO2 does because each molecule holds a central carbon atom, winged by two oxygen atoms that are strongly attractive to its electrons. As a result, when a CO2 molecule vibrates, (think of it as "flapping" its oxygen "wings"), its electric charge swings first one way, then another. This movement creates electromagnetic waves -- what we call "light" -- at the same frequency as the vibration that caused them. And in much the same way that a clock pendulum swings back and forth on a predictable beat, CO2 vibrates naturally at a fixed frequency that just happens to be the same as that of the infrared light radiating out from the planet's surface.
How much light our atmosphere's CO2 radiates depends on how much it vibrates. The more infrared light from Earth's surface strikes a molecule, the more it vibrates and the more energy it then radiates back out again as infrared light -- which we feel as heat. Since a huge portion of the energy the Earth radiates is in the same frequency band at which CO2 vibrates, the entire system acts like a planet-size amplifier for the Sun's heat.
Nineteenth century scientists, equipped with relatively crude instruments, believed that CO2's greenhouse effect must be small. They didn't doubt that CO2 could absorb and radiate a great deal of energy. They just thought the job was probably being performed already by the planet's much more abundant atmospheric greenhouse gas, water vapour (another molecule with a central atom and two "wings" -- in this case two hydrogen and one oxygen, hence H2O).
Two things began to change that view. High-resolution spectroscopy mapped out in detail the particular light frequencies that different gases absorb, and how much of it they absorbed. This revealed CO2 operates at different frequencies than water vapour. Research also determined that unlike water vapour, CO2 is found throughout the atmosphere even where water vapour isn't: at higher altitudes, over deserts, and in colder regions of the globe.
It turned out that we are being warmed just as much by the way our atmosphere echoes and compounds the effect of the Sun, as we are by the Sun itself -- boosting our planet's average temperature by about 30 degrees Celsius.
Tomorrow: Why CO2 heats things up. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Read more: Science + Tech, Environment
67
Login or register to post comments
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
thank you Eric
An excellent start, I look forward to being entertained by the contortions the paid denialists and genuine cranks will no doubt go through trying to refute a factual exposition.
Oh yeah :).
Story
16 weeks ago
Tyee climate course crashes . . .
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
. . . before it gets started!
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
See? Like roaches.
How about we get all posts that don' t substantively address the article deleted right away? I for one am tired of getting snowed by the same spammers. This one even posts something that directly refers to the Koch's Heartland Institute as the only "realists". Flush them I say , flush them all!
Story
16 weeks ago
Crash course crashes . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYPqN7bbxaA&feature=player_embedded#!
. . . believe believe believe . . .
wiley
16 weeks ago
Story falls on sword
Conflating the hegemonic War on Terror - at root a pre-planned neocon oil grab, with global climate change - a dire reality that scientists have had a very hard time convincing politicians to take seriously enough, is the best straw man yet. Full marks for being so obfuscatory and disingenious!
Fiat lux
16 weeks ago
As the real, educated people
As the real, educated people and "conservative world leaders" know, and keep telling us, climate change is the invention of "eco terrorists" and can not happen as it would never be permitted by our universities' economics departments and the stockmarkets, that rule the world.
Ed Deak.
alive
16 weeks ago
There is no God!
Nobody has convinced me that there is a God, and it seems that the majority of people think that I am crazy to have that opinion -- yet I live happily amongst them and adjust myself to what the god-fearing people deem correct.
So, how about you climate deniers do likewise?
Is it so hard to drive a new car that pollutes less and gives better gas-mileage?
I pass many churches without getting upset, so why not pretend you do not see the windmills or other energy-saving devices?
Yes, by all means you have the right to comment, but it would be like me trying to tell you that there is no God -- wasted time!
Illahie
16 weeks ago
Lets See if I understand this correctly
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
It is measured in something called PPM, which stands for Parts Per Million. For every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere there are about 3000 molecules of other gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas theory only works for parts of the planet which are over land. 70 percent of the planet is over water.
El Nino, La Nina, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation explains approximately 100 percent of the temperature changes of the planet.
Even the UK Met office now concedes that the planet has been cooling for the last 15 years.
Do I get a gold star or something? Did I just flunk this course?
Greg in Calgary
16 weeks ago
Lesson 9?
Maybe we should ask Eric to add one more lesson about the Psychology of Denial?
Where to start? Oh, I know:
1) Using ideology to justify belief - see Story, above. Oh yes, Forbes is a science organization - that's why they're a font of rabid climate-change denial.
2) Why Ron Paul is the anti-Gore. They cancel each other out, see?
3) Why claiming that climate science is merely a "belief system" is the last refuge of people who genuinely don't understand how science is done, or why it's important. Yes, they should have paid more attention in High School, but is that any reason why we have to wade through all their nonsense on the Internet?
I'm sure we could come up with a few more ideas if necessary, but feel free to get started with those.
Frank
16 weeks ago
You flunked Ilhaie
The origin of your belief that the UK Met Office says the world is cooling is that it said 1998 was the warmest year. However, it also said the last decade has been the warmest decade.
Which means the 2001-2010 period was warmer than the 1991-2000 period. That doesn't sound like cooling to me.
Or to put it another way, let's say I give you a penny every week for a year but on the 15th week I give you a dime.
Then the following year I give you a nickel every week for a year.
Just because I didn't give you a dime at any point in the second year doesn't mean you're getting poorer.
Birch
16 weeks ago
Thanks, Eric
Keep them coming. The information about the radiative process of CO2 molecules is new to me, although I understood the essence of the greenhouse effect in terms of its gross effect.
It's a clear, cogent article.
Greg in Calgary
16 weeks ago
Is this where the Met Office concedes something?
@Illahie:
Yes, you don't understand the part about the greenhouse effect occurring everywhere. When he says "the planet's surface", he means both land AND sea. Also, saying "but the tiny concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere!" means you might want to study this a bit more. Wikipedia has more details.
Here's the UK Met Office's response to the Daily Mail article about "No warming for 16 years".
"As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade."
I don't see any mention of agreement with the erroneous claims made by the Daily Mail, do you?
Booker
16 weeks ago
Idiot Wind
On the CTV national news a couple of weeks ago the presenter started off a story on sea-level rise with the line "while scientists disagree on the cause of global warming..."
They told an outright falsehood in order to pacify the trolls (or perhaps because some writer at CTV actually IS a denialist troll).
When is the mainstream media going to stop paying attention to flaming morons? I don't care about trolls in the comment threads. It's the ones in political office and in the newsrooms of the national media that are the true outrage.
Thank-you, Tyee, for this series!
Greg in Calgary
16 weeks ago
When is the MSM going to stop paying attention to morons?
When it stops being profitable? Our only other option is to shame them into behaving like responsible corporate citizens, and they have pretty thick skins.
Okanagan Orchardist
16 weeks ago
Come on, Frank
Some people will never understand the old, simple, math.
:)
wiley
16 weeks ago
appropriate reading material for CCCC
Illahie, skip the Koch brothers' cherrypicked junk science which will just make you stupider than silence, and read "Storms of My Grandchildren" by James Hansen, climatologist at NASA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLBDVZO-8xM&feature=player_embedded
Chris Rose
16 weeks ago
Thank you a great start lets have more of .
Copies of these articles should be send to the Ministers of Environment at the federal and provincial levels and especially Mr. Harper
Illahie
16 weeks ago
Frank discussion on 1998
You are right Frank, by all accounts 1998 was a very warm year. If I remember correctly it was also a very strong El Nino year. It seems that there is a correlation between the global temperatures and El Nino. How strong is it? Calculations using an autonomous neural network say very strong.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/climate-forcing.htm
For more information check out the ebook by Bob Tisdale "Who Turned up the Heat?" Bob also calculated that El Nino La Nina, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation explains 100 % of the changes in world's temperature, cooling as well as warming.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/everything-you-every-wanted-to-know-about-el-nino-and-la-nina-2/
NickS
16 weeks ago
How about modeling water vapor?
Water vapor is THE "greenhouse gas" and so far nobody has "modeled" it. The climate models have all been based on a false supposition that CO2 in parts per million can overcome the effects of the Sun and is more important than water vapor.
"Ferenc M. Miskolczi shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in Miskolczi's paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content."
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
This planned series of articles is the last gasp of one of the most organized deceptions since the invention of fractional reserve banking, which is not surprising, since it is the World Bank and the IMF which stood to benefit from the Copenhagen deal. Luckily it was exposed at the time, but they don't give up that easily.
news. They pretend the money grab is about ending world poverty.
http://sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/10/new-world-bank-head-wants-to-add.html
Meanwhile, it keeps getting colder, 300 people died of cold in Eastern Europe in the last week, and now even NASA expects a colder period coming up due to an absence of sunspots.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/01/nasa-we-may-be-on-the-verge-of-a-mini-maunder-minimum.html
Frank
16 weeks ago
Illahie
Let's assume you're right and that El Nino La Nina, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation explains 100% of the changes in world's temperature.
Now why would that be? We've always had El Nino type things going on. So why now would it systematically cause each decade to be warmer than the one before?
And why would scientists not have picked up on this?
NickS
16 weeks ago
Scientist have "picked up on it" Frank!
The real ones, anyway. what you refer to when you say each decade is warmer than the one before, is the effect of "adjustments" by Saint James Hansen.
Older temperature record were "adjusted" down and more recent records "adjusted" upward.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/why-hansen-had-to-corrupt-the-temperature-record/
But it seems even Saint James admits a stand-still in temperature now.
http://www.thegwpf.org/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/
Sine Nomine
16 weeks ago
Unfortunately, none of this matters...
I have read a ton about climate change, mostly because I'm fascinated by science, especially emergent sciences, like climatology.
I've stopped weighing in on it for the most part though, because it's so polarized, very much like debates between atheists and the faithful. Money is clearly in the mix on both sides of the equation too, which is hopelessly muddying the waters.
For me though, it's about simple economics now, that is what will decide this issue, one way or another rightly or wrongly. History has never been kind to those who try and hurry her along before it's time. It doesn't matter how much you try and educate the populace of the planet about this "issue" it will have sorted itself out long before you get the nations of this world to sing with one voice, and why, economics.
For the rich in the western world, it's possible for us, largely anyway, to spend more to achieve our "needs," without much pain. When this becomes policy though, western people too will be marginalized by these decisions -- that thought is always at the surface for me. I know that our carbon tax policy (I live in BC) and other ghg initiatives hurt real people right here and now. Imagine telling the poor people's of the world they can heat their food with coal, peat or wood to feed their families anymore because it's not environmentally friendly. In the fantasy world that most western people happily reside, humans are noble (if flawed) creatures. That is not the reality though. Quid pro quo will dictate the nature and pace of change period. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it will be in the future.
Just like with any potental catastrophic environmental change, some organisms will adapt and survive and some will perish. Nothing is certain, real scientist refrain from using that term. In the big scheme of things, we're really quite insignificant, and you would think we would have learned from our past attempts at exceeding our grasp, that we continually go about life in the wrong way and it starts with how we think about it.
cw
16 weeks ago
"the anti-Gore"
Gotta love it.
NickS
16 weeks ago
SN, think about the Money Junkies, and don't
get so apathetic and passive.
All life is literally at risk from the smart meters/smart grid being installed at great expense and which Al Gore, the worlds first would-be "Carbon Billionaire," through Silver Springs Network stock ownership,
Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=0
is literally making a killing!
Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt
Smart Meters & EMR: The Health Crisis Of Our Time -
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=5f9785476840fa159ba3486cf3e94d41
Yes, the climate is changing,from whatever cause, but that does not give anybody the right to microwave us.
bfearn
16 weeks ago
A waste of time....
passing this info on to the Harper gang.
First, they think it would be OK for Canada to be warmer. About 4 billion others be damned.
Second, you don't go against your very rich fiends in the oil patch. Notice how Obama never went against his very rich friends in the bank patch.
Third, it is all about money, now. Others can figure out the impossible difficulties they are creating but they want to buy the most expensive jet fighter on earth.
Forth, governments have show us about a zillion times that they all lie, I.F. Stone, they all use killing to 'solve' problems and they routinely put profits before people and the environment.
Booker
16 weeks ago
Two kinds of denialism
After all these years of debate, I've observed basically two kinds of global-warming deniers:
Conspiracy Theorists: this is the group that includes 9/11 Truthers, HIV deniers, anti-vaccine activists, some anti-Semites, gold hoarders, and preppers.
Ideological activists: Kevin O'Leary and his ilk; climate change implies that the private enterprise system is imperfect and needs regulation. As they view that as inherently incorrect, anthropogenic climate change cannot, by definition, be happening (or at least must be caused by non-human factors only). You could throw the religious fundies into this category: God loves us and would not let this happen, therefore it is not happening. Those who say it is happening are therefore evil, spawn of Satan, or something.
A third category that no longer exists is those who honestly did not think the science was correct. All such people now think the science is correct.
DJC
16 weeks ago
Feyman said it best
"It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."
The AGW computer models are wrong, the AGW science is wrong and the whole premise of social solutions to global processes is wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/co2-temp-rss.png
Illahie
16 weeks ago
To be Frank
It is all explained in Bob's book, it only costs eight bucks. In its 600 odd pages you will learn about Walker Circulation, Hovmoller Diagrams, Kelvin waves,the Pacific Meridonal Zone, and much much more.
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
and for free you can use the web
to get the consensus opinion of the global scientific community that human activity is rapidly changing the climate with very possibly disastrous outcomes.
There, saved ya eight bucks.
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Booker
you missed category 4: those who just do it for the money. A LOT more of those around than most realize. They either get work selling Florida low tide timeshares, boiler room stocks. Nigerian letter scams or climate change denial. To a psychopath, it's just money.
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
attention now class!
(RAP RAP RAP!) Hem hem!
Now we all agree with all the basic science laid out so far in the article above? No objections to the simple factuality of the foregoing? Good!
Now be sure to remember all the lessons learned so far, they will be important later.
Also be sure to remember (publicly!) that no one contested any of the building blocks laid out so far.
Looking forward to lesson two!
DJC
16 weeks ago
Eric Nadal is a "scientifically trained writer"?
WTF does that mean?
I wonder how his "scientific" training stands up to these guys:
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
very poor dj, very poor
the ad hominem gets you minus six marks. Go to the back of the class!
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
once again,
apart from "does-not-study" djc, are we all agreed there is no flaw in the material so far presented? (oh SIT down dj! and get rid of that gum!)
Fiat lux
16 weeks ago
I wonder how many of the
I wonder how many of the deniers live in the country? We only have to look out our windows and can see the changes every day.
Used to have -40, -45. even -53 for weeks, every winter, but haven't had any -40 since 1995, now we're surrounded by millions of dead trees killed by the bugs each of whose 400 eggs survive every winter.
A scientist friend of mine has just been invited to a major conference in China in March, on the subject of climate change and "green economy", trying to stop it.
Ed Deak.
greg.blanchette
16 weeks ago
Never too late
Oh dear, such cynicism and despair. My thinking is that it's never too late to do something, to act well. Humanity has not acted honourably on the climate crisis (yet), but we all individually have to do what we can day-to-day, just to live with ourselves. So no matter how oblivious or ignorant or malevolent our elected leaders are, there is always a right course of action. And this series of articles fits that bill for me. I will read them avidly and share them widely, including with my elected rep's at every level. Thank you Eric and The Tyee for stepping up!
NeverGiveUp
16 weeks ago
A little error - typo?
Water is 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen.
NeverGiveUp
16 weeks ago
Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway
This is an excellent and meticulous exposure of the whole denial industry, starting with "smoking doesn't cause cancer" to "climate change isn't happening". READ IT!
moern
16 weeks ago
I can't wait until tomorrow
When it gets explained how parts per million of CO2 do their little, very little, "radiative dance" which lasts milliseconds. Oh, my!
"Seven milliseconds, compared to 10 days of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the atmosphere, compared to 121 years of trapped solar energy in latent heat in the oceans.
"So where is the actual heat trapping?
"By inventing an artificial atmospheric greenhouse effect, and labeling both carbon dioxide and water vapor as “greenhouse gases”, they perform a trick of attributing to carbon dioxide, what in truth only water is capable of doing."
Joseph E Postma, MA, Astrophysics,
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Heh heh!
"Pal reviewed", heh heh heh!
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/joseph-e-postma/
moern
16 weeks ago
Well, of course he is on the Honor List
He not only denies CO2's "heat trapping", he also denies the world is flat and that a cool sun shines on it 24 hours a day. In fact he lists eight things he denies.
What a hoot, The real "flat earthers" are the climate modellers, because that is the way they have been modeling the Earth all these years.
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
fail moern, fail
we know you can't or won't actually read the article, it's not posted for your benefit.
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
all that evil committed in the name of greed
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/how-the-kochtopus-stifled-green-debate-8466316.html
moern
16 weeks ago
I did read the article
Both the article we are commenting on and the trashing attempt of Postma's work at the
the strangely named blog Skeptical Science.
Mr Postma covers it all himself here,
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/06/astrophysicist-debunks-disinformation.html
I don't expect a true believer like you to either read or understand it. Mr. Postma is another Canadian we can be very proud of. He is right up there with Ball, McKitrick and MacIntyre.
By the way, Dr. Tim Ball has triumphed over both the Michael Mann and Green Candidate Weavers vexatious lawsuits. Both have been dismissed.
Good wins over evil once again. God smiles on Truth Tellers eventually.
"Weaver, the IPCC’s chief climate modeler, has fallen foul of court rules because he, just like Mann, has been timed out for failing to advance his case since last year due to a bizarre refusal to comply with court rules to show what's behind his science. Honest scientists would have no qualms over a little 'show and tell' to convince a jury their science is "settled." But these charlatans must think its worth blowing a cool million to keep it hidden. As such, for their failures to come clean both their lawsuits are now scheduled for immediate summary dismissal, plus costs. The desperate duo are represented by libel expert, Roger McConchie, a big-hitting lawyer unused to having his butt kicked so emphatically round a courtroom."
http://www.pugetsoundradio.com/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?m-1353960630/
Gary2
16 weeks ago
Add this to your
Add this to your literature.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
And again :)
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/ferenc-miskolczi/
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Heh!
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Ayup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Fish in a barrel
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html
FatherTheo
16 weeks ago
Yes, every major scientific organization on Earth is wrong.
Friends of science is a bunch of retired geographers , mostly from the petrochemical industry, funded by Big Oil, as anybody who actually does their homework can tell you. Let's call them Friends of Oil to be more accurate. 97% of all real climate scientists represent the consensus on climate change. Of the remaining 3%, 2% say that the effects are not going to be as bad as the IPCC says--call them luke-warmists. Only 1% actually deny it's happening. This 3%, by the way, is counterbalanced by a much larger group of scientists, the real dissenters, who say things are going to be worse. The latter, unfortunately, seem to have a point.
Frank
16 weeks ago
Ilhahie
Thanks for the recomend. I assume in the book he claims that the data showing the last decade was warmer than the 90s? Or does he agree with that and state alternative reasons for it?
NickS
16 weeks ago
F.Theo where are you getting your numbers?
Did you pull them out of Mann and Weaver's sorry butts?
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
There is no consensus on climate, except for the parasites feeding off the public's carcass.
IPCC officials are telling Working Group 2 authors about scientific papers that haven’t been written yet. These papers will appear in a special edition of a journal guest-edited by an activist scientist.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/20/this-is-called-cheating-part-1/
Months before authors were even selected to write an upcoming IPCC report, its chairman was telling a live audience what conclusion that report would reach.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/12/22/this-is-called-cheating-part-2/
How does any honest, sane person continue supporting this nasty charade?
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
your "source" this time, nick
seems to have no scientific background at all
http://www.desmogblog.com/donna-laframboise
How is it then, that the vast majority of scientists say there IS a consensus? Have they all gotten together and secretly formed a majority opinion amongst themselves based on best evidence that they all ought to tell the same lie? :)
NickS
16 weeks ago
Where's the back up for your assertion for a consensus?
Desmogblog bankrolled by a convicted felon?
"DeSmog does at least get its funding from only the highest moral authority, right? Well, wrong again. DeSmog was founded with $300,000 from its chief benefactor John Lefebvre. Lefebvre is a convicted Internet fraudster currently out on bail awaiting conviction after pleading guilty in the NETeller multi-million dollar online pay system scam."
http://www.energytribune.com/6994/desmog-debunked
So to use Desmogblog as a way of denigrating one of Canada's best investigative reporters is beyond lunacy. She doesn't need a science degree to detect bullsh*t. Given that the owner of DSB is John Hoggan,Public Relations Guru and Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, you guys sure run a tight little incestuous self-referencing ship.
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
back up?
try actually reading what others post nick, your petty ad hominems don't amount to anything and the long available, well published lists of science organizations and individual scientists that are openly snickering at the likes of you quote as "authorities" will show you what a public laughingstock you are making of yourself.
Oh and quoting loony Texan fundies in bed with the oil industry doesn't help either :)
NickS
16 weeks ago
Where IS the evidence of "consensus"?
You don't like name calling and have no trouble with "deniers", because that's different because .... ?
Silly me thinking that a false consensus was breaking up when prominent members of the American Physics Society resigned.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
freewilly
16 weeks ago
can you make it easier to explain?
I wish the enviro folks would come of with better reasons to quit emitting Co2 and there are more reasons than this ridiculous explaination of climate change,
I will post some links, eventually, only to say its been known for a very very long time why burning fossil fuels is a bad thing.
Ill wait for the next article and see what is said...
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Why is it
"Ridiculous"?
Hakuin
16 weeks ago
Here Willy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/top-climate-scientist-denounces-billionaires-over-funding-for-climatesceptic-organisations-8467665.html
NickS
16 weeks ago
Those Terrible Koch Bros!
It is just infuriating that skeptics get anything! Everyone knows Greenie greed comes first and nobody but Saints of Sustainability, like The Tides Foundation, WWF or Old Hockey Stick himself, Michael Mann should get anything.
Nobody deserves a cent of any monies spent on climate, especially not on climate research that based on reality and not junk climate models.
How dare those Evil Capitalists, (not the Good Capitalists like the Rockefellers who fund Saint Bill McKibbon), how dare they fund any research into the real causes of climate change. Level playing fields are NOT allowed.
And they are such cheapskates too! Only +$2 million for 2 years.
The US Government *only* spent $70 billion on climate since 2008. Now, that's something to crow about instead of carping about a measly $2 million. How many millions are there in a billion...I forgot!
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/us-government-only-spent-70-billion-on-climate-since-2008/
NickS
16 weeks ago
On Michael Mann's "Transparency" issues
"Professor Mann said it is ironic that the same organisations that he says have pursued him and his colleagues for alleged lack of transparency are being funded anonymously by people who are so closely tied to the fossil-fuel industry."
He dropped a libel suit and paid costs rather than allow anyone to see his raw data. His scientific work is what is supposed to be transparent, open to scrutiny and reproducible.
“There are some of us, however, who have been emboldened by the attacks. We don't take kindly to propaganda campaigns intended to smear scientists and confuse the public,” he said."
So sue me Mikey! Let's see the raw data!
CindyLP
15 weeks ago
Chemtrails
Prince George had an abundance of chemtrails on Jan 23/2013: And seven people I know complained of migraine headaches over Jan 23/24/25. Anyone else hear of similar complaints?
Hakuin
15 weeks ago
Well, at least it's good
To bring all the nutters out in one busy little clump. Does make you despair of the species response to long term survival threats though. Wonder how many of them would buckle down and work as hard to guarantee our collective doom when we finally get a clear warning of the next major asteroid impact? Why is it they put more work into head-in-the-sand than just the bit of science study it would take to grasp reality?
moern
15 weeks ago
Doesn't Hakuin remind you of the guy
who after being caught by his wife in bed with another woman, said, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
Hakuin
15 weeks ago
hah! moernon is another chemtrailer!
really , you couldn't write this stuff. Tell us, tell us about the reptiloids at the center of the earth and their conspiracy with the dope smuggling queen of England!
freewilly
15 weeks ago
Im getting old
Maybe because Im getting old, Im just cynical. In my younger days it was deforestation as the cause of climate change. At least thats a little easier to quantify. Look at the Mediteranean and Europe now, and imagine it 6000 years ago. Did deforestation change the climate? Of course it did. We didnt have oil and gas machines that spewed out greenhouse gases 6000 years ago, but we did a good job of screwing the planet without technology and a fraction of the population we have now.
A few years ago cutting down the Amazon was of concern and would contribute to climate change, did it? Of course it did. Doesnt seem to be on the media radar anymore.
For a while I was really interested in Bogs (Burns Bog), joined the bog society learned all about peat, trounced around the bog habitat and got lost a few times. Now Im a proponent of Sequioa trees and see them as our salvation, also Fusion.
We cant stay on topic for very long before another theory replaces it by a different generation of thinkers and scientists.
I have a small enviro library of biology texts, books on genetics a few Rachel Carson books, A Green History of the Earth, some Gaia new age material, earth spirituality, Wicca and so forth, Some are mine most are my former wife's.
Thing is global warming and greenhouse gases were suspect but not the cause of climate change. Climate change is a pretty general phrase, like the word 'dis-ease' or 'denial' or 'schizoid'.
I am simple person, but I get the sense that the planet isnt unlike a living organism itself and humans are like some kind of cancer attacking the various organs. Until we decide we are going to be benificial bacteria, all the education in the world isnt going to help, what is a dire situation.
Hakuin
15 weeks ago
Willy
In matters of global climate you are not getting old, you are a mayfly. Stop trying to calibrate such things in the mere gasp of your existence.