[Brandon716]

Gee, I only intend on making the Toronto area my home in the longer term. Of course I find Canadian issues of interest.

 

[isittimetomoveyet]

You are missing the point. First off, what will taxing carbon (fuel) actually do? Will it suddenly make all cars, transportation and travel go away? How much of a percentage drop in consumption will be brought about by such a tax? Probably not much, as there is no alternative to these fuels.

- No, it wont make all those things go away, but it will make people rethink their current choices and in some cases, people will walk or bike to get around, some people will rely more on public transit, and some people will say it doesnt matter because they have money to burn.

What actual problem will this tax supposedly solve? If you mean carbon dioxide emissions, most of carbon dioxide emissions are natural. Human additions are a tiny fraction of the total carbon dioxide that cycles through ecosystem. And how do you know that this carbon dioxide is so dangerous? Look around you. Anything that is green lives because of carbon dioxide. You are alive because of carbon dioxide. Water vapour is the most prominent infrared absorber in the atmosphere - by far. Maybe we should all stop boiling water, too.

- This is simply absurd. I have had to reread this paragraph a couple of times because I cant believe the ignorance in it. 3000 + of the worlds leading scientists have peer reviewed much of the science that has been done for the IPCC. These scientists, whose only loyalties are to science (and who are not on the payroll of some oil and gas company). The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 150 years has grown from 280ppm in 1850 to 380 ppm now, and quickly approaching 400ppm, which is the 'tipping point' that many of the same scientists warn us about.

The point is that this tax solves no actual problems. It only makes things more expensive since this tax will be applied to energy usage. That energy use is necessary to things such as the production of goods, the transport of food, getting people to work, and so on. You are neglecting this point. Your life is made good by cheap energy.

- And our world is being ruined by cheap energy. We need to bring fuels in line with their true costs. Each litre of gas burned is contributing to climate change. Charge people for it and all of a sudden there will be many many people and companies trying to find ways to reduce co2 emissions in all types of day-to-day type activities and processes. This tax, coupled with some other good measures (interest free green renovation loans, incentives and grants and such) and policy mechanisms can be very effective..

.

 

[isittimetomoveyet]

Based on historical study, there is clear evidence that previous variations in globally averaged temperature have been far more significant than what has been (supposedly) observed over the last century. This is true not only over thousands or years, but hundreds of years as well. We can call that earlier variation "natural" if you wish. Because this is so, there is no way to distinguish whether the averaged 0.6C increase in globally averaged temperature is any different from natural changes. That being said, this noted temperature shift falls well within the variability in global temperature over the last four thousand years. It was warmer before that.

And, in the overwhelming majority of cases, when the average global temperatures were +/- 5 or more degrees, how habitable was the planet for life, as we know, in the abundance that we have seen it over the last 1000 years?

Of course there have been larger variations. For instance, when the planet was first formed, born, whatever, the atmosphere was almost 100% carbon dioxide. In that type of atmosphere you cant have humans, and the birds and the bees living as we know it, few organisms can exist in such an environment, it is simply not hospitable to life.

The point is that our atmosphere is in a delicate balance and we do not know what will happen if we continue to add to this imbalance... I am not willing to take the risk of not acting when making these changes are necessary and good for quality and life and human, plant and animal livelihood as we know it.

 

[Hydrogen]

It's estimated that 1,000 years ago the average global temperature was as warm if not warmer than it is today, during the Medieval Warm Period. Wine grapes were grown in England, grain crops flourished across Europe and the population of that continent doubled. There is no record of massive extinctions, extreme weather or starvation. Even the Polar Bears managed to ride it out.

In the Swiss Alps, the trunks of trees that once grew on mountain sides are being washed out from under the glaciers that exist there today. These trunks have been dated and were growing there about 2,000 years ago - when there were no glaciers in the area. The Roman were thriving at that time.

Between warm periods were much cooler times. The most recent of these cool periods is the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1300 to the late 19th century. The planet is still coming out of this period; it is still warming up from a period in time that, at its worst, saw the starvation of a considerable portion of the European population. Cold periods have had a much more negative impact than the warm periods.

Is it not possible for you to think that what you are hearing about is a natural cycle? There is considerable evidence to support this idea. And a 0.6C temperature rise over 100 years (with plenty of variability within that time period) falls well with the +2.5C to -2.5C variation in the mean temperature over the last 6,000 years. Over the longer term, there is nothing unusual happening.

For instance, when the planet was first formed, born, whatever, the atmosphere was almost 100% carbon dioxide.

And now the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is 385 parts per million - one of the lowest measured levels of the last 500 million years.

The point is that our atmosphere is in a delicate balance and we do not know what will happen if we continue to add to this imbalance...

Plants will grow more green as that carbon dioxide will be taken up by them. Many people argue that the climate is delicate, but they usually neglect the natural swings that illustrate that the planet and its climate is far more robust than we want to believe. Go back 15,000 years and you'd be under a kilometre of ice. Jump to 7,000 years ago, and you are at the warmest period of the Holocene - far warmer than today. Over time there is a great degree of variability. That is a fact worth recognizing.

Nevertheless, if you feel a need or desire to change your habits and lifestyle, go right ahead. Just don't do it on the basis of a presumption that there is anything radically different or wrong with the global climate today.

The tax in question will stop none of this.

 

[isittimetomoveyet]

It's estimated that 1,000 years ago the average global temperature was as warm if not warmer than it is today, during the Medieval Warm Period. Wine grapes were grown in England, grain crops flourished across Europe and the population of that continent doubled. There is no record of massive extinctions, extreme weather or starvation. Even the Polar Bears managed to ride it out.

- And what were the average temperature at the time? 1 or 2 degrees may not make a big difference, but in most cases, when the average temperature was +/- 5 degrees from where it is now, conditions on the planet were quite different.

Is it not possible for you to think that what you are hearing about is a natural cycle? There is considerable evidence to support this idea. And a 0.6C temperature rise over 100 years (with plenty of variability within that time period) falls well with the +2.5C to -2.5C variation in the mean temperature over the last 6,000 years. Over the longer term, there is nothing unusual happening.

- It is a fact that our cars emit carbon dioxide, and that our industries are spewing out carbon dioxide, methane, etc, at an alarming rate. How can you possibly say that this has no consequence on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Sure there have been natural variations over the last 100,000 or even million years, but never, ever before in our worlds history have we had mankind artificially increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as we are now. You openly state that there have been natural variations in the average global temperature, so how can you not agree that us increasing the concentration in the air will have an effect.

Every action has a reaction, and manmade climate change is a result of our thirst for fossil fuels and inefficiency.



And now the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is 385 parts per million - one of the lowest measured levels of the last 500 million years.

- Again, show me a timeline from a reputed source that charts that last 500,000,000 years, and shows co2 concentrations (ppm) against the activity and level of life on the earth. Sure it may be low from a 500 million year perspective, but life hasn't flourished on earth during that entire period. When levels increased to a certain point and beyond, (450 - 500 ppm) life would become increasingly difficult. This is of course, not to mention that these natural variations you speak of took thousands of years in most cases, allowing species to adapt towards changes, whereas we have begun to make these changes take place in less than 150 years.

Nevertheless, if you feel a need or desire to change your habits and lifestyle, go right ahead. Just don't do it on the basis of a presumption that there is anything radically different or wrong with the global climate today.

- Even then, why not get off oil and move to cleaner technologies? I don't particularly like polluted air, nor do I like the stranglehold that oil companies have on us. I would also like to think that we, as highly intellectual beings, would at least have the brains to use our resources efficiently and not as wasteful as we are today, at least, and especially, here in North America.

.

 

[isittimetomoveyet]

Sorry about some of these replies, I haven't got the multi quote thing down.

 

[Hydrogen]

There is no known "average" global temperature from 1,000 years ago. There are, however, proxy measures that indicate a much warmer climate. Global measures for average temperature have existed only since 1979 with the launch of satellites capable of carrying such measurements. This satellite data shows that globally averaged temperatures have been flat since 1998. Over the last year, these temperatures have actually dropped slightly. If they continue to drop, there will have been no significant globally averaged temperature increase over a thirty year period - just a set of temperature variations over that duration.

How can you possibly say that this has no consequence on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Because the correlation between increases in C02 and temperature is weak. There are better fits between things such as the natural shifts in ocean oscillations and temperature than between C02 and temperature. There is also a good match between shifts in solar irradiance and changes in global temperature, suggesting a coupled solar-ocean-atmosphere link. Carbon dioxide can absorb infrared well, but only at narrow wavelength bands. Water vapour is by far the largest and most efficient absorber of infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and it also absorbs at much the same wavelengths as carbon dioxide.

It's also worth noting that there have been rises and falls in temperature within the past 150 years that had nothing to do with C02 - simply because very little of the stuff was being put out by people. Oxygen isotope records show a cooling period from 1880 to 1910, followed by a warming period up to 1940's. After this, there was a cooling period up until the mid 1970's. The warmest period of the twentieth century was in the 1930's when there was only a fraction of the carbon dioxide output of today. The most significant jump in carbon dioxide output - World War Two and the post war industrialization years - takes place during a period of cooling. The correlation is quite weak.

For long term C02 see: Berner and Kothavala. GeocarbIII: A Revised Model of Atmospheric C02 Over Phanerozoic Time.

Also, see: Schwartz. Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system. This updated calculation of the effects of atmospheric C02 indicate that a doubling of contemporary levels of C02 in the atmosphere could result at most in a average global temperature increase of 0.7C to 1C, not the 5C widely promoted by the IPCC. This would hardly be catastrophic.

Even then, why not get off oil and move to cleaner technologies?

You may not have been reading this about this issue on this forum, but I've touched on this topic a number of times. I have pointed out that the easily accessible sources of oil are presently on tap. New sources will be found on ocean shorelines, the Arctic and the Antarctic. Like Canada's oil sands, the U.S. has massive reserves of shale oil that would be water-intensive to access (a major concern with respect to Canadian oil sands). The worry about accessing these sources is that they will be costly and will raise the concerns over spills. Also, oil plays a far too significant role in global politics. For these reasons alone it is worth looking at improving efficiency and to gradually moving away from oil to other sources of energy.

 

[isittimetomoveyet]

Sorry brother, I have enough respect for you as I usually enjoy your posts and feedback, but on this issue I don' think we will see eye-to-eye.

I cannot be swayed from my belief that climate change is real and that we are the culprits. Let our kids duke it one day

 

[Brandon716]

Sorry brother, I have enough respect for you as I usually enjoy your posts and feedback, but on this issue I don' think we will see eye-to-eye.

I cannot be swayed from my belief that climate change is real and that we are the culprits. Let our kids duke it one day

He uses psuedo-science to try and prove his claims, especially when he claims that there is more CO2 in earth's past than today when you look at the overall picture.

On that point I will actually agree with him: early in Earth's history the atmosphere didn't have enough oxygen to feed human life and there wasn't life like we know it today.

But that's bending the science to make your own point, the reality is that in modern Earth history, in the era of carbon life forms, the level of CO2 is becoming dangerous because we're burning it into the atmosphere at an astronomically and unnaturally high pace.

Its that simple, and its a proven greenhouse gas. Everything he's presented on here is psuedo science, from his claim that there is massively more frozen ice (not true) than in decades past to his claim that there are no small changes in climate currently measured (again, not true, we have an average difference of temperature much higher at the poles). Hydrogen is talking down to everyone else when his information is dubious at best.

You don't cherry pick the evidence and present what you want to make a pre-determined conclusion, that's called hack science and its really all that hydrogen offers. Most of us admit that we don't know everything about climate change and global warming, but we do know several facts he's trying to dispute and he uses the fact that we don't know everything to create some fake doubt that global warming even exists.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html

There are certain years that are slightly cooler still to this day, we're actually CURRENTLY in a slightly cooler ice melt period in 2008 as this past winter had slightly more ice than the last, but the overall trend is clearly up. And even though this past year was up, it was significantly down vs 1979 when used as a baseline.

These charts show the general trend, even though we have years of up and down ice melt.

This is just undeniable science, and the average surface temperature data is the same: a clear up-trend even with small hiccups.

 

[Hydrogen]

He uses psuedo-science to try and prove his claims, especially when he claims that there is more CO2 in earth's past than today when you look at the overall picture.

Berner, R. Kothavala, Z. 2001. Geocarb III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric C02 Over Phanerozoic Time. American Journal of Science 301: 182-204.

You might want to tell these geophysicists at Yale that they are pseudo scientists. Same with Schwartz - who is at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Its that simple, and its a proven greenhouse gas. Everything he's presented on here is psuedo science

Prove that it is pseudo science.

from his claim that there is massively more frozen ice (not true) than in decades past

I never said "massively." I said greater ice extent than in the recent past. By the way, are these pseudo-scientific organizations? Do you have actual evidence that the data presented below is wrong?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/mar/sh-seaice-200803-pg.gif

http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news?print=1&id=256486

You don't cherry pick the evidence and present what you want to make a pre-determined conclusion, that's called hack science and its really all that hydrogen offers.

Are you accusing me of lying or miss-representing data? Why don't you check the satellite data yourself concerning global atmospheric temperature.

Most of us admit that we don't know everything about climate change and global warming, but we do know several facts he's trying to dispute and he uses the fact that we don't know everything to create some fake doubt that global warming even exists.

If you read the IPCC reports. Brandon, you would have noted that the IPCC indicates a low level of scientific understanding of all natural climate forcings - including cloud cover and the sun- which are absolutely crucial to understanding climate. That admission ought to be viewed as a very significant statement. What it says is there is a low-level of scientific understanding of the planetary climate! The natural climate and its effects overwhelm anything we could possible do, and the level of scientific understanding is low. The IPCC goes on to suggest that a high level of understanding exists for the effects of carbon dioxide, methane and halocarbons, but this understanding is not based on actual measured effects in the atmosphere, but derived from calculations of an idealized atmosphere (a model). Researchers like Schwartz and others question the results derived by models used by the IPCC.

 

[lordmandeep]

Global Warming exists but its effects have been overblown.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I cannot be swayed from my belief that climate change is real and that we are the culprits.

I think that's the most honest thing I've heard any of the GW/ClimChange folks say. If other people here would be as honest to just say that no matter what anyone says or shows me, my belief can not be changed, then we'd avoid a lot of pointless debate.

 

[MisterF]

Anyone who's interested in debating climate change with Hydrogen should probably read this thread first. It's quite informative. One thing remains clear: every peer-reviewed literature review that examines the subject of human-caused climate change concludes that it's a reality.

 

[Hydrogen]

And as in the thread you cite, you have indicated that you have not read every peer reviewed literature review to actually make this statement.

 

[MisterF]

Of course I haven't. And in that thread you tried to find a review that came to the opposite conclusion and couldn't. So I stand by that statement.