Ask and ye shall receive... re: Kyoto
Wow, that was fast! I asked a few questions about climate change... and the National Post responds with a front page story today!
Kidding... but it is really weird timing. The author (Joseph Brean) addressed many of the very things I was thinking/asking about, regarding my skepticism about "global warming". In it, he discusses the theory of "solar forcing" with Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Carleton University.
"Solar forcing" refers to an atmospheric process which may begin a cycle of global cooling in the early 2020's, Prof. Patterson says, in accordance with the Gleissberg cycle's long term projections. I've never even heard any of this before... so I guess I have some more reading to do.
This quote at the end of the article caught my eye...
Not to say that we shouldn't be making some changes to how we do things. Remember "Acid Rain"? It was something we caused, and we had to make changes to correct it. Smog? Still a major problem in major cities, and I think that needs to be tackled as well. Deforestation? We're hacking away at the lungs of our planet... let's figure out how to end it. (which will mean actually dealing with the issues of poverty in South America, not just preventing them from burning the Amazon) We are still doing a lot of damage to this planet, and the way I view it, God gave us stewardship of it... and we're not doing a good job of it, and will have to answer for it. So let's get with it.
But spending billions on Kyoto and this yet unproven "global warming" junk? I think our money can be much better spent elsewhere. THAT's why I don't like Kyoto. I think we're spending all our resources on a problem that is still as of yet undefined, whereas we're ignoring other issues that have ample evidence and we can tackle, and still have not as of yet.
And that's why I still support Rona as our Minister of Environment.
Kidding... but it is really weird timing. The author (Joseph Brean) addressed many of the very things I was thinking/asking about, regarding my skepticism about "global warming". In it, he discusses the theory of "solar forcing" with Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Carleton University.
"Solar forcing" refers to an atmospheric process which may begin a cycle of global cooling in the early 2020's, Prof. Patterson says, in accordance with the Gleissberg cycle's long term projections. I've never even heard any of this before... so I guess I have some more reading to do.
This quote at the end of the article caught my eye...
It will not be long before the debate is forced to a crisis.I've always been a believer that the majority of what we see happening around us could be better attributed to normal earth cycles, and not any man-made interference.
The theory of solar forcing predicts that, starting in the early 2020s, an inactive 11-year cycle in solar activity will coincide with a low point in the longer-term Gleissberg cycle. According to this theory, the world is about to get colder, not warmer.
"Cover up your magnolias," is how Prof. Patterson puts it.
This will be a crucial short-term test for both believers and skeptics.
Not to say that we shouldn't be making some changes to how we do things. Remember "Acid Rain"? It was something we caused, and we had to make changes to correct it. Smog? Still a major problem in major cities, and I think that needs to be tackled as well. Deforestation? We're hacking away at the lungs of our planet... let's figure out how to end it. (which will mean actually dealing with the issues of poverty in South America, not just preventing them from burning the Amazon) We are still doing a lot of damage to this planet, and the way I view it, God gave us stewardship of it... and we're not doing a good job of it, and will have to answer for it. So let's get with it.
But spending billions on Kyoto and this yet unproven "global warming" junk? I think our money can be much better spent elsewhere. THAT's why I don't like Kyoto. I think we're spending all our resources on a problem that is still as of yet undefined, whereas we're ignoring other issues that have ample evidence and we can tackle, and still have not as of yet.
And that's why I still support Rona as our Minister of Environment.
posted by Christian Conservative @ 12:00 p.m.
13 Comments:
At Sat May 27, 01:26:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
I'm honestly not as worried about global warming (or ice ages) as I am my lungs and health, and all the polution our species is pumping out is not doing anything to help. Global warming might be a problem, and if it is it needs to be dealt with, but in the meantime we have to cut down on polution simply for the sake of our own health. And remember, this polution affects the rich as well as the poor, the conservatives as well as the liberals, and everyone else in-between too.
At Sat May 27, 02:28:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
He sort of lost me at the "Virtually all atmospheric carbon is from volcanoes point", because no one credible suggests volcanoes are even the major natural source for carbon in the atmosphere. Most analyses suggest volcanic action is a tiny contributor overall, far less than the human amounts - which are themselves perhaps 5% of natural.
Such a basic area undermines his article rather badly, because of his 'flat earth, round earth' idea.
At Sat May 27, 02:56:00 p.m. EDT,
Joanne (True Blue) said…
Interesting article. It's not the first time I heard about the solar influence. On the other hand, the National Post hasn't had the greatest track record for verifiable reporting lately... Ha-ha! Beat you Liberal trolls to it!!
At Sat May 27, 03:20:00 p.m. EDT,
Zac said…
Damn, I was going to bring that point up Joanne. Your always taking my best lines....
At Sat May 27, 04:27:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Duh. One breathes oxygen into lungs and breathes out carbon dioxide. Forests are a bad example as any carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere by photosynthesis is offset by forest respiration and the decay of dead trees.
At Sat May 27, 04:58:00 p.m. EDT,
Christian Conservative said…
I'm with you there 100% Drew!
At Sat May 27, 05:41:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
"Your always taking my best lines...."
Man, that's some lame-ass lines you've got yourself there.
At Sat May 27, 07:33:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
--But spending billions on Kyoto and this yet unproven "global warming" junk?--
Come on. To say that “global warming” is yet unproven junk is ridiculous. There is no longer a debate about whether or not global warming is occurring. There is a debate about how much it is warming, what the effects of the warming will be, and whether it is more cost effective to try to stop global warming from happening or to just deal with the consequences of the warming.
Here are the biggest name anti-global warming “scientists” that you can find. None of them are still willing to admit that global warming does not exist. All of them have changed their position in the last year or two from global warming is a hoax to global warming is not as bad as some people make it out to be (which of course is true. Some people who are saying some pretty ridiculous things will happen. Some are completely clueless. If anyone watched the recent CPAC interview on kyoto you would be ashamed to see that the person from each of the four parties was completely clueless. Pretty embarrassing for all sides).
Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute. I have read his three books bashing climate change. He is probably the most known “skeptic” in the world.
But here he is on Hannity and Colmes about 10 days ago.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605170011
“Global Warming is a very real thing. People have had something to do with it in the last several decades of the 20th century.”
He said basically the same thing on the Fox special on “Global Warming: The Debate Continues” that aired about the same time and was supposed to show the amount of disagreement that there still is within the scientific community. I encourage all skeptics and proponents to watch that show whenever it is replayed on Fox. That is as good as it gets for skeptics and the “doubters” sound almost as alarmed about global warming as the “extremists.” As a global warming proponent I was thrilled with the show, because I know that the anti-global warming has completely run out of arguments. So now we can get down to the real debates.
Patrick Michaels:
“The planet is warmer than it was 100 years ago, warmer than it was 150 years ago, warmer than it was when Thomas Jefferson was around.”
Patty also likes to say that scientists follow the global warming line because that is where the money is. Interesting considering that no scientist has made more money than Michaels has in opposing it.
John Christy and Roy Spencer are the ones who provided the main skepticism against global warming with their study on weather satellite data, which showed global cooling. Last fall errors were found in their data and with those corrections their study now shows the same degree of warming as other studies. They have admitted this. (Ever wonder why a couple months ago George Bush all the sudden started talking about how we need to start moving to renewable fuels and the reality of global warming? As much as I don’t like the man, he is not completely stupid and understands that every speck of real science supports global warming.)
The two of them were also interviewed on that same special (I taped it):
Roy Spencer:
“Global Warming is with us, it is real. But the big question is how much is it and how much will we have in the future.”
And the real question:
“The Concern is how the climate system responds. Whether the climate system responds in such a way to amplify the warming or to mitigate the warming. That is where all the debate is.”
John Christy:
“The warming will continue for the next century.”
James Connaughton:
The Chairman on the White House Council on Environmental Quality:
“The issue is quite an urgent one for action and we can take as much action as our economy can reasonably support.”
Fox: The Bush Administration has never denied that Global Warming exists. Now the Bush administration has released the first of 20 scientific reports shedding more light on how to manage the risk of our changing climate. (Note – it is actually the first of 21 reports, called Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere. I encourage everyone to read it. Even though it is only the first report it appears to be setting a tone that leads me to believe that these reports will have far more similarities to the IPCC reports [about 98% of what is important] than differences)
Then the special goes on to talk about the necessary changing over to things like ethanol and solar/wind power; Hybrids, hydrogen and fuel cell cars. Talks about how Ford’s original model T was designed to run on ethanol, but big oil companies kept the vehicle from coming to market.
James again:
“There is no question that we are seeing an average temperature increase around the globe.”
“We need to get beyond the constant repetition of the problem, as we all agree there is a problem, and lets get on with the solution.”
Roger Pielke Jr. (They also interviewed his father Roger Pielke Sr. Both seem to be considered skeptics, but their comments in the last couple years show that they were either originally mislabeled or that their positions have changed somewhat)
“If when George Bush was inaugurated in 2001, you would have been told that 5 years later he would be talking about solar power and hydrogen powered fuel cars you would laugh, I think quite appropriately.”
“I think one of the things is that we have to start taking action rather than battling back and forth. The reality is when you look at almost every environmental policy that has been implemented. It required groups who have fundamental differences to come together and agree on a shared course of action.”
Fox: The UK may be tracking below its commitments, but the government now admits it will not meet a voluntary reduction in emissions of 20% by 2010. It will more likely be 15 – 18%, because of high gas prices fueling the use the coal.
Bjorn Lomborg author of the Skeptical Environmentalist:
“I used to be a worried member of Green Peace.” (I can’t believe he is still saying this on Fox. After GP complained that they had no record of him, he has admitted that his only connection to GP was that he once donated some money to them.)
“There are many other problems, there are 3 million people dying of HIV/Aids every year. There are millions of people dying of malnutrition, malaria, lack of clean drinking water.” Lomborg maintains that spending money on climate change would be beneficial, but far less cost effective and will do less immediate good than spending money to correct other world problems. He does not dispute global warming, he just thinks that it will cost too much money to stop it. I have read Lomborg’s book and I think he makes some great points (and some errors, both of which are bound to happen in a book as large as his). But I don’t see most of the Conservatives who oppose Kyoto because it may result in some money being sent to developing nations approving of his plan to send $75 billion a year to the developing world nations to improve their health and living standards.
There was a non-scientific blow-hard interviewed: Senator James Inhofe, he does not seem to have any scientitfic support for his positions (although he believes he does). If you examine his other positions on things like Abu Ghraib where he was “outraged by the outrage.” I think that see that he more extreme on his side then he complains the extremists are on the other side.
So, lets end the debate about how there is doubt that global warming is occuring and turn to the real debate about how much, consequences of doing nothing, consequences of doing something, etc.
At Sun May 28, 11:13:00 a.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
To anon:
Volcanoes emit approximately 90,000Mt/year of CO2 into the atmosphere (48% of total emissions per year). Humans contribute about 6,000Mt/year (3% of total emissions per year).
At Sun May 28, 12:02:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Thanks AC.
I guess because your numbers are not sourced they are common knowledge. I went looking for a source for those numbers, but I couldn’t find one on those numbers. Still they have got to true. But some people like myself might be skeptical. I mean seeing as CO2 levels in the atmosphere started to rise after the industrial revolution, and seeing as they continued to increase at a faster rate in the first half of the 20th century and then an even faster rate during the last half of the 20th century. I guess the only explanation is that volcanoes are erupting more recently then in history. Make sense? Nope, but who cares. The idea that man-made emissions only account for 3% is incredibly stupid. One wonders why it is that the temperature did not skyrocket after a massive eruption like Mount Pinatubo? Scientists would tell us that is because volcanoes do emit CO2, but at the same time they emit a whole lot of sulphur.
I guess if readers are actually interested in learning something they can read this report by the British Geological Survey:
Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle: basically it shows that volcanic CO2 emissions are neglible. Even the huge Pinitubo erruption only emitted 42 MT of CO2. So if you are wondering that means that in that year alone to reach AC’s number of 90,000MT of CO2 from volcanoes, there had to have been 2200 Pinatubo sized erruptions that year. Damn main stream media only covered one of them.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf
“Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.”
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp10/question2326.html
The following is a very good article from a very good site:
“One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/
At Sun May 28, 04:15:00 p.m. EDT,
Joanne (True Blue) said…
"Man, that's some lame-ass lines you've got yourself there."
Blake, just so we're clear, was that me you were insulting or Zac?
At Sun May 28, 04:36:00 p.m. EDT,
Blake Kennedy said…
Sorry for the vagueness, Joanne.
Clearly zac. He was the one who said that you were stealing his BEST lines, and I thought your line was at best, average. So I was after him. ;)
At Sun May 28, 06:40:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Trevor:
No need to be rude. The first rule of good science is detaching yourself from emotionalism. The source I quoted was:
"Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Post a Comment
<< Home