News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

Do you want to increasingly build tax and energy policy on the basis of such massive uncertainty over human impact? Or would you rather build energy policy on the basis that access to inexpensive oil grows ever less each passing year, has and will have a considerable geopolitical impact, and that cheap energy is an essential cornerstone to our way of life? My concern is with the latter.

I am most assuredly concerned with the latter as well. It's just that we're very fortunate that doing something about the massive problem that we are almost certainly facing in global warming would also solve our oil supply issues as well.

You're obviously intelligent, and you've had your out-of-the-mainstream views on global warming for a while. There's nothing I can do to change them. Unfortunately, many people int he world will believe talk about uncertainties (as if there is never any uncertainty in science) and take that to mean that we should continue burning oil as usual. I just don't think that the future of the life-sustaining systems of our planet are worth gambling on the fact that we're only 90% sure that we're causing them irreparable harm.
 
I've invited everyone to click the IPCC links and study the research for themselves. The overall conclusion of the studies based on decades of science and archives gathered for information from hundreds of thousands of years in the past suggest human activity is creating an abnormally high amount of global warming that will have dangerous consequences. The cherry picked information you have quoted is just that: cherry picked. The overall outlook is clear, and the evidence is overwhelming.

Really enough has been said.
 
Brandon,

I've already provided a link to the IPCC months ago on another thread. The IPCC reports are available to anyone.

As for the mass melting of ice, you can visit NASA and find satellite measure information on the Antarctic that shows an increase in the ocean ice extent. Satellite measures, such as RSS-MSU, show a stabilization and recent drop in the globally averaged atmospheric temperature since 1998. NOAA has just announced a massive updating of its surface temperature measurement stations due to acknowledged long-term inconsistencies in data collection. All that information is out there for you to look at. And just so you know, surface temperature measures do not cover 70% of the planet particularly well as they are ocean - even today. Globally, there were less than 300 surface stations in 1860, over 16,000 in the mid 1960's, and less than 5,500 today. That's a really lousy way to derive a global average, don't you think? Plus, cities have grown to encroach many surface station sites, where they now naturally pick up the urban heat island effect.

At present you've went beyond a carbon tax, you are now trying to debunk that global warming enhanced by man-made activities is real

You clearly don't understand the link between the carbon tax and global warming. The tax is a policy proposal that supposedly deals with that issue.


Unlike imaginative, who states that the science contains uncertainties, you view it as being absolutely certain. You don't like that I have cited the uncertainties in the IPCC report, but that is what they are, and the IPCC published them, I didn't make them up. Had you actually read the document you would have noted that statements of these uncertainties go far beyond what I've cited. I've selected the IPCC because for believers like you it is the bible of doom. Having read it you should have noted that the IPCC still can't actually determine what the averaged global temperature increase will be in the future. Their supposedly accurate climate models have failed to predict any El Nino or La Nina event (natural periodic ocean-atmosphere events). They also make assumptions about when the doubling of atmospheric C02 will take place because they don't actually know when it will happen, or if it will actually double.

Its pretty amazing that you're willing to defend a position that man-made pollution isn't the cause of global warming, its almost like trying to prove the world is flat. For years and years and years, people said there was no way man was big enough to alter the composition of the atmosphere. It was true in the 1800's it was true for almost all of the 1900's. Now that we know it isn't true, you're one of the few willing to cherry pick your own "science" for convenience.

We have been discussing carbon dioxide which, I have pointed out, is essential to life on earth and is hardly a pollutant. I have also pointed out that variations in temperature have a nice correlation to ocean oscillations and solar changes. Both of these have a far greater impact on climate than
an increase in carbon dioxide (0.038% of the atmosphere). Water vapour is by far the dominant absorber of infrared energy in the atmosphere.

As to the rest, it's not at all clear what you are trying to express.

It took hundreds of years to convince the catholic church and other protestant movements that the sun didn't revolve around the earth, it took hundreds of years to convince people that when a lightning bolt zapped you out of the sky that it wasn't the GODS were upset with you, and its taken literally hundreds of years to prove through scientific observation that yes we indeed are changing the composition of our atmosphere.

That's a strange stringing together of questionable historical events. As I have pointed out, atmospheric carbon dioxide is presently quite low when compared to the last 600 million years of geological history. Also, it was much warmer than today between six and eight thousand years ago, a period when there were no human activities that could have had any impact on the global environment. Between four and five thousand years ago it was also warmer. About three thousand years ago it was warmer. A little over two thousand years ago (Roman Warming) and roughly one-thousand years ago (Medieval Warming) there were also warm periods lasting hundreds of years. Each of these warm periods have been punctuated by cooler periods. Through a period of at least one million years there is evidence for a roughly 1,500 year warm-cold cycle, which is called the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. This cycle is evident through the considerably colder glacial periods of the ice age as well. From about 1000 to 1300 it was as warm or warmer than today, between 1400 and 1900 was the depth of the Little Ice Age, when it was cooler than today. We are gradually moving out of this and into a somewhat warmer period of that cycle. If you look at the effects of the Little Ice Age, you might conclude lucky us.


Do you work for a corporate think tank or business interests or a lobby group whose sole purpose to exist is to cherry pick information and debunk global warming as myth...

You whine on about me being condescending towards you, but you have done little due diligence in informing yourself on this issue. You operate on a presumption that the science is, as you stated, absolute. If you respect yourself as an informed citizen, might it be useful for you to actually try and inform yourself on other ideas and the research that backs them up? Just a question.
 
Brandon,

I've already provided a link to the IPCC months ago on another thread. The IPCC reports are available to anyone.

As for the mass melting of ice, you can visit NASA and find satellite measure information on the Antarctic that shows an increase in the ocean ice extent. Satellite measures, such as RSS-MSU, show a stabilization and recent drop in the globally averaged atmospheric temperature since 1998.


...You whine on about me being condescending towards you, but you have done little due diligence in informing yourself on this issue.

You need to better inform yourself. I don't have the time to go through a point by point analysis with you on the topics you raised in the most recent post, but I will address this one circumstance. You said the antarctic has more ice today than it did 10 years ago, and that is clearly not what is going on. Its the only disturbing factual error I care to address from your previous message.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html

25 March 2008
Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World
This is a joint press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder; the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), based in the United Kingdom; and the Earth Dynamic System Research Center at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) inTaiwan.

Media Relations Contacts:
Stephanie Renfrow, NSIDC: srenfrow@nsidc.org or +1 303 492-1497 (se habla Español)
Athena Dinar, BAS: amdi@bas.ac.uk or +44 (0)1223 221414
Cheng-Chien Liu, NCKU: ccliu88@mail.ncku.edu.tw or +886-6-2757575 X65422

Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is a broad plate of permanent floating ice on the southwest Antarctic Peninsula, about 1,000 miles south of South America. In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) per decade. NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos, who first spotted the disintegration in March, said, "We believe the Wilkins has been in place for at least a few hundred years. But warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."

Satellite images indicate that the Wilkins began its collapse on February 28; data revealed that a large iceberg, 41 by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles), fell away from the ice shelf's southwestern front, triggering a runaway disintegration of 405 square kilometers (160 square miles) of the shelf interior (Figure 1). The edge of the shelf crumbled into the sky-blue pattern of exposed deep glacial ice that has become characteristic of climate-induced ice shelf break-ups such as the Larsen B in 2002. A narrow beam of intact ice, just 6 kilometers wide (3.7 miles) was protecting the remaining shelf from further break-up as of March 23 (Figure 2).

Scientists track ice shelves and study collapses carefully because some of them hold back glaciers, which if unleashed, can accelerate and raise sea level. Scambos said, "The Wilkins disintegration won't raise sea level because it already floats in the ocean, and few glaciers flow into it. However, the collapse underscores that the Wilkins region has experienced an intense melt season. Regional sea ice has all but vanished, leaving the ice shelf exposed to the action of waves."

With Antarctica's summer melt season drawing to a close, scientists do not expect the Wilkins to further disintegrate in the next several months. "This unusual show is over for this season," Scambos said. "But come January, we'll be watching to see if the Wilkins continues to fall apart."

Real-time collaboration
Images from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and data from ICESat showed that the ice shelf was in a state of collapse in March. Scambos then alerted colleagues around the world, seeking to ensure that every means of gathering information was focused on the break-up.

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) mounted an overflight of the crumbling shelf, collecting video footage and other observations. BAS glaciologist David Vaughan said of the ice shelf, which is supported by a single strip of ice strung between two islands, "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on West Antarctica yet to be threatened. This shelf is hanging by a thread."

Associate Professor Cheng-Chien Liu at Taiwan's National Cheng-Kung University (NCKU) also responded, requesting high-resolution color satellite images of the area from Taiwan's Formosat-2 satellite (Figure 3), operated by the National Space Organization. Cheng-Chien Liu said, "It looks as if something is slicing the ice shelf piece by piece on an incredible scale, kilometers long but only a few hundred meters in width."

South American scientists also got involved. Andrés Rivera and Gino Cassasa at the Laboratorio de Glaciología y Cambio Climático at the Centro de Estudios Científicos in Chile (CECS), acquired images of the Wilkins from the ASTER instrument, aboard NASA's Terra satellite.

The combined efforts of these international teams have begun to provide observational data that will improve scientific understanding of the mechanisms behind ice shelf collapse. Scambos said, "The Wilkins is an example of an event we don't see very often. But it's a key process in being able to predict how sea level will change in the future."

More information
The Wilkins is one of a string of ice shelves that have collapsed in the West Antarctic Peninsula in the past thirty years. The Larsen B became the most well-known of these, disappearing in just over thirty days in 2002. The Prince Gustav Channel, Larsen Inlet, Larsen A, Wordie, Muller, and the Jones Ice Shelf collapses also underscore the unprecedented warming in this region of Antarctica.


This most recent significant break off occurred earlier this year, not that long ago.

The antarctic has got considerably less ice today than it had 30 years ago or 100 years ago for that matter. Any slight variation in recent history does not make up your misinformation.

Where are your baselines? Anyone could claim Antarctica has "more ice" in May 2008 than it had in November 2007. Why? Because this is the winter, that is the summer, and its frozen more oceanwater back into ice.

Again, I am going to stick to the basis of my argument. When you look at the overall data and do not cherry pick, and you have objective scientific evidence, its overwhelmingly showing that you're wrong.

If you look at data on the National Snow and Ice Data Center web site, it conclusively shows less ice in antarctica.

http://nsidc.org

Once again I have provided data and information with the reputable sources to back me up that you're flat out wrong. Again.

What else do you have to throw up that can be disproven, hydrogen? This is too easy.
 
Brandon,

Because the Antarctic ice shelves come in direct contact with the surrounding oceans, they are more sensitive to changes in ocean conditions and and shifts in wind patterns and waves. Forces within the ice can also cause breakups as well; there could have been long forming faults which finally gave out. In addition, this break up occurred during the end of the Antarctic summer (the Antarctic "warm season"). The average temperature in that part of the world between 1972-2008 was 4.2C (NASA gistemp, San Martin Station). Only 3% of the 13,680 square kilometre (5,282 square miles) of the Wilkins Ice Shelf actually collapsed. That means only 405 square kilometres collapsed (160 square miles). This is not unusual. The "runaway" disintegration in this case could have caused by the ongoing effects of wind and the undercutting action of waves. The initial small collapse triggered another larger collapse. There is apparently nothing so unusual about that from what I've read of ice shelves.

It's also odd that this media release blames the breakup on "rapid climate change" (which, by the way, was not attributed to human activity, did you notice that?) because contrary to what is said in this release, there has been very little climate change in the region. Moreover, ice shelf breakups are not all that uncommon and most certainly have happened periodically over millions of years. Also, its worth noting that the nearby King George IV shelf, as well as several other shelves along the area of the Bellinghausen Sea just 500 kilometres away, show no sign of disintegration or collapse.

The Antarctic Peninsula, where this ice shelf is located, makes up only about 4% of the total Antarctic land mass, and juts out into the surrounding seas (it is roughly equal in size to the British Isles). The peninsula has a southern latitude roughly equal to the northern latitude where you would find northern portion of Finland (it's the most northern part of the most southern continent). The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located the west, or Pacific side, of the Antarctic Peninsula. Compared to the whole of the Antarctic continent, it is very small and very exposed to the effects of ocean activity. By comparison, the massive East Antarctic ice cap is quite stable and is still the coldest place on the planet.

Annual mean surface temperature data from San Martin base, the closest meteorological station to the Wilkins Ice Shelf:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700890660008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

The surface snowmelt in Antarctica for 2008 was 40% below the average for 1987-2007.
Article:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO130002.shtml

Graph:
http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/2008/Tedesco_89_13.html

Growth in sea ice anomaly:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/mar/sh-seaice-200803-pg.gif

Yearly data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/sh-200803-seaice-ext-anom.prn
 
At least you finally link data.

Cherry picked data... The baselines are off. You suggest ice is increasing when its seasonal fluctuations between the winter and summer. The overall trend is clearly the opposite.

Thanks for at least linking some form of data for a change. I'll have to research your sources of course, so if there is a bias I'll be sure to point it out in a later discussion.

Also, its interesting this article in particular:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008EO130002.shtml

It uses data for the first three months of 2008 during the summer months in Anarctica against several years of data. That doesn't sound like good science.

But even if there is an aberration for one quarter's worth of ice, you still haven't made your point.

Also, read the article I link. Its got some information that is pretty clear about how much of that ice shelf is at risk.
 
Concerning Antarctic sea ice extent:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html

Maybe you like that source better.

It uses data for the first three months of 2008 during the summer months in Anarctica against several years of data. That doesn't sound like good science.

Unlike the news release you posted, this journal article is peer reviewed. You might want to take it up with the reviewers.
 
There is a recent spike in ice in part of the Antarctic during the current winter re-freeze season, yes. I believe it to be a variation from the overall trend of a warming world where we will continue to see the breakage of large sections of ice such as the article I linked to you.

We're going to need years of observation to see if the trend of re-freezing keeps up, because at the present the Antarctic still has huge ice sheets dissolving and the Arctic is even more ravaged.

The data suggest this is an anomaly, not the rule.
 
Throughout the entire discussion on the carbon tax the largest argument made was over a large unknown - fuel taxes in regards to gasoline for cars.

Ends up Dion's carbon tax plan doesn't even tax fuel for automobiles and totally exempts it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/19/dion-carbon.html

Seems like the biggest anti-carbon-tax issue just got cleared up.
 
If Dion wants to bring in a new tax, he should wait at least until he's been in power for a few years. Why not get the PM's job, and then in year three introduce the carbon tax as an election issue in year four. Then at least people could see how you govern first.
 
Dion rejected the notion that increasing the price of fossil fuels would ultimately raise the cost of gasoline.

Uh huh. So all the talk of a carbon tax as a disincentive to using cars has been pointless then.
 
Its not pointless, there are still incentives in taxing a bad (carbon) instead of a good (income). Reducing income taxes and increasing carbon taxes will encourage alternative energy use and put a price on carbon emissions in a real sense.

This is a new concept to ponder, and it will take a while for it to settle in that taxing carbon is good overall.

Will this solve all environmental problems? Not at all, but its a step in the right direction.
 
Yes, its pointless. Carbon taxes are often sold on the idea of taxing users directly, and not burying the tax to where it can't be seen. The idea here is to get producers to pass on the tax costs to consumers.

Just stating that taxing carbon is good does not mean that it is. That's your belief. Making this tax supposedly revenue neutral means that those who can afford it will continue to do what they've always done, so it fails to provide any direct influence on consumers as so wished by those often promoting this idea. The reason for this is that the Liberals want to tax, but don't want to appear that they are doing so.
 
You've convinced yourself its pointless so whats new? LOL
 
This coming from a guy who doesn't live in the country, but wants to argue about its tax policy and for new taxes. Now that's funny.
 

Back
Top