Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Every Day on February 02, 2014, 06:23:12 PM
-
Is it climate change or is it just a couple odd years in a row....
The past couple months on the island and coast have been so far away from normal it isn't even funny. No precipitation, 7% of snow pack... Not to mention it's been above 8C pretty much every day for the last 2 weeks straight. I have been observing good hatches some days of midges, stones, and mayflies the past 2 weeks out here.
One thing I wouldn't consider "normal"...
I observed button up fry (one step up from alevin - already emerging from gravel) North island (either sockeye or coho, didn't take a close enough look) a week ago.
My buddy has observed button up coho fry for 2 weeks now in some of the Mid/South island rivers, and I have as well. These fish are probably a month early emerging. Also the mergansers are already feasting on pinks/chum that have already hatched.
Another "abnormal"....
Yesterday on the Stamp we caught a couple chromed up kelts already. Crazy for them to be in the lower river, already back into good shape and close to the ocean.
Me and a buddy also each got CHROME hatchery winter run does. Upon whacking them, they started spewing their eggs everywhere. These fish were bullets, but were ready to go already... winter runs already spawning/within a week of spawning on the 1st of February?!
Hopefully this is just showing that the steelhead are very adaptable and will be able to cope with climate change and low winter flows if the lack of precipitation and increasing temperatures continue ...
Winter runs seem to be disappearing rapidly everywhere. It seems that "winter" fish are changing and coming either early or late. The past 2 years on the Stamp have been spectacular for "fall runs" in the middle of November until Mid December. From what I have heard, the fall runs (seems people call them sminters?) seem to have "appeared" a number of years ago on the Stamp (I wasn't fishing it at that time), does any one know if that's true, did they just start up all of a sudden? It would make sense that steelhead are changing their run timing based on water flows and temperature... The same can be said for the Vedder river as more and more "summer run" fish seem to be reported each year. I personally have caught 2 there the past 3 years and have heard of quite a few more as well.
On the flip side of that the past few years have been good to great for summer runs on every flow that I have been fishing. This makes sense as well, as summer runs tend to do well in low water to get up barriers (in my limited experience anyway). As long as the water doesn't get too warm they seem to be fine in low water. They can also compete with salmon easier (get away from where salmon can spawn) compared to winter runs which utilize somewhat the same areas.
Any one else have thoughts on what is going on? Any patterns or oddities you have observed this year?
Cheers,
Dan
-
Clearly global warming.
-
Clearly you need to go to the opposite coast and talk global warming.
-
Clearly global warming.
I wouldn't call what is happening to Earth right now global warming.
It's definitely climate change though, I can't see a way around it. I've always denied it, but it's getting insane, and patterns are definitely developing in new areas. North is getting more precipitation, we are getting less precipitation and warmer, east is getting colder and more precipitation, storms are getting more intense, the COLDEST ever recorded temperature on Earth was recorded this winter in the Antarctic. The next couple decades will definitely tell whether or not these are just a couple fluke years, or whether it is what is to be expected in the future.
-
There is enough scientific data to suggest global warming. The polar ice caps is a fraction of what it was decades ago.
-
Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming". Climate change, sure. Man made, laughable. The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity). There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming. If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job. You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?
Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013? Instead it grew 29% in a year.
The Earth temperatures change. They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there. There are cycles. One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year. There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models. Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those. It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.
-
The global warming premise is likely politically driven...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
-
Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming". Climate change, sure. Man made, laughable.
I'm not a scientist nor am i an environmentalist, but you're kidding yourself if you believe we humans and our abuse of the environment has no effects on the ecosystem...try googling the study of frogs in the rain forest and the concentrations of carcinogens in the air due to pollution.
Didn't you study the process of photosynthesis in high school?
It's true the world's climate does change through the millenniums, but you can see a chronological change in the past 120 years since the beginning of the industrial era...change which is sporadic and fast coming.
-
I'm not a scientist nor am i an environmentalist, but you're kidding yourself if you believe we humans and our abuse of the environment has no effects on the ecosystem...try googling the study of frogs in the rain forest and the concentrations of carcinogens in the air due to pollution.
Didn't you study the process of photosynthesis in high school?
It's true the world's climate does change through the millenniums, but you can see a chronological change in the past 120 years since the beginning of the industrial era...change which is sporadic and fast coming.
You took the words out of my mouth, and made them sound a lot more intelligent. To suggest we have zero part in the changing climate is wrong and naive. The term "global warming" is out-dated and definitely needs to be used less.
-
.............just after New Years saw a large flock of robins....usually not back around untill mid Feb/early March...??
-
Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming". Climate change, sure. Man made, laughable. The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity). There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming. If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job. You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?
Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013? Instead it grew 29% in a year.
The Earth temperatures change. They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there. There are cycles. One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year. There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models. Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those. It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.
This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.
You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.
Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change. Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change. Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced. This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.
The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.
What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"? No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda. Where would the money come from? If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research. That should be self-evident to even a half-wit. Look at which scientists lost their job recently. Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding. Experimental Lakes Are: shut down. Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.
Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better. Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid. Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.
I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.
-
Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming". Climate change, sure. Man made, laughable. The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity). There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming. If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job. You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?
Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013? Instead it grew 29% in a year.
The Earth temperatures change. They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there. There are cycles. One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year. There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models. Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those. It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.
I suggest you join this discussion forum. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/) Your opinions will be more appreciated there.
-
This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.
You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.
Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change. Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change. Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced. This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.
The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.
What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"? No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda. Where would the money come from? If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research. That should be self-evident to even a half-wit. Look at which scientists lost their job recently. Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding. Experimental Lakes Are: shut down. Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.
Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better. Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid. Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.
I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.
+1
For those inquiring minds wondering how we got to this point of our scientific community being halved by the Harper Admin I can't recommend this boom enough.
'The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada'
-
it always turns into a religious debate. way to go dan lol
-
First off, let us clarify that "Global Warming" refers to increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. It does in no way suggest that the climate is going to be warmer all over the Earth (indeed parts of the Earth may actual get colder). There are also periods of cooling and warming as the climate globally is highly variable, but that does not change the fact that the average global temperature has increased significantly over the last 100 years and the last few decades have been the warmest 30 year period in the last 1400 years. True, it can be pointed out that "global warming" has occurred naturally throughout the history of the planet. We experience global warming during every full Interglacial Period, or approximately every 100,000 years and during each interceding precession period (these are periods of warming in the current Ice Age...that's right kids, we are in the middle of an Ice Age, the Quarternary Period, and have been so for about 2 million years). However, it is the rate of global warming that has scientists worried as the loss of the continental ice caps and the corresponding increase in sea level will displace literally billions of people in a relatively short time warming periods are far more abrupt than cooling periods due to "positive feedback". That is when one factor (warming temperature melts the polar ice cap) causes an effect that enhances the preceding factor (less ice covering the ocean means more solar radiation is absorbed and increases the temperature which causes more ice to melt). It is a human castatrophe, not a natural one. Mother Nature will get along swimmingly long after we have all drowned.
-
Oh...I should mention that I am set to make billions of dollars by buying up all the cheap land in Richmond once I have scared you all into moving upcountry to avoid the rising sea level, only to sell it back at premium prices when Global Warming is proved to be scam by my fellow conspiracy theorist nut jobs.
-
I'm surprised at how some here jumped all over TNANGLER. What I got from his message was... 1. THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE TODAY. 2. It has been going on for as far back as we have recorded history. 3. One large volcano anywhere in the world will produce far more particulates in our atmosphere than man does.
What I DIDN'T hear him say is that man has had no affect on the planet... which seems to be the rant from a few of you.
Of course man has had an affect on the planet in a negative way. However, we have done a few things to curb the downward cycle. I doubt any of you would accept the obvious, quick solution... kill off as many humans as possible and stop all future child birth until we fix the over population problem. When do we invade India?
.....................................................................
The ORIGINAL topic was what changes in the environment, in regards to fishing, have you noticed recently? Let's stick to that.
I have a book written but not published yet. It has to do with over 50 years of my fishing diaries on Vancouver Island, and my observations of changes. I've held off publishing the book because I'm still seeing remarkable changes that could change my original ideas.
-
Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013? Instead it grew 29% in a year.
(http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/01/Figure3-350x261.png)
from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/: The linear trend in ice extent for December (1978 through 2013) is now −3.5% per decade, or −46,500 square kilometers per year (−18,000 square miles per year). The lowest December extent was recorded in 2010 (12.02 million square kilometers or 4.64 million square miles). The spatial pattern of ice extent in December 2013 was similar overall to what was seen in 2010, except that 2010 had much less ice cover in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay....
While the most notable aspect of 2013 was the much higher September ice extent relative to the record low for 2012, extent in 2013 was nevertheless low overall. The maximum extent for 2013 of 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles), recorded on 15 March was the sixth lowest over the period of satellite observations. The minimum of 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles), recorded on 15 September, was also the sixth lowest.
from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/arctic-ice.htm : On Aug. 19, 2007, a joint survey by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency revealed that Arctic ice was melting at a far quicker rate than anticipated. What's particularly alarming about this discovery is that the United Nations' scientific models anticipated that the ice levels measured by the Japanese team would not be reached until after 2040 -- and possibly not until 2050.
so the original prediction for ice thickness levels of 2040 to 2050 were reached in 2012 though ice increased in 2013.
They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there.
I think this a confusion of Vinland, (Wine Land) the ancient Norse name for North America (excluding Greenland). Wild grapes are common in many parts of North America. They are present in Newfoundland the one place in North America where the Vikings are known to have had a settlement - this is a National Historic Site at L'Anse aux Meadows. As far as I know there is no evidence the Vikings at that site grew domestic grapes there. Transporting them over the North Atlantic from Denmark via Iceland would have been a challenge. One thousand years ago Newfoundland was significantly warmer and wild grapes may have been more common so the conventional wisdom was that was the origin of the name. There is another theory that Vinland is actually a corruption of another near identical Norse word for meadow and did not refer to grapes at all but would translate as Land of Meadows.
Easy google searches can find all this information
One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year.
This seems to be a frequently made but specious claim. One estimate places man made CO2, the gas most frequently linked to anthropomorphic GW as on average 150 times that emitted by volcanic activity. (http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html) Still major eruptions have significant short term effects on climate and shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/
-
You all worry about global warming. There is some thing worse than that coming to a shore near your. Our so called friends in Japan are sending us an never ending supply of radiation. This is going to be in your food, water, soil, etc. This is going to affect your families health. There is going to be a rise in all number of different cancers.
They say Fukushima was an world changing event. Some say a extinction event. What every one should become aware of is what low level radiation can do to you.
There is a number of good web sites with lots of information on what is really happening. Don't look to main stream media or the goverment for they have there own agenda of false science.
Rense and Coast to Coast are a couple of the best.
Anyone heard about the carbon credit market. Who do you think benifits from gobal warming. Could be that one of the former vice presidents of the U.S.A has become a very rich man due to formation of the carbon credit market. Wouldn't happen to be the guy that brought global warming to the forefront.
-
The global warming premise is likely politically driven...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
I love it!
An article written by a known skeptic, who has no formal training in climate - this guy has been a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist... And currently holds NO academic post.
How about we go ask a climatologist - or anyone else with relevant training and isn't just being paid by some conservative lobbist group. OH WAIT! He was being paid by the Heartland Group, a Conservative/Libertarian think tank from the USA. OF COURSE hes going to tell us nothing is happening...
Oh, even better... In the 90s the Heartland Group teamed up with Phillip Morris (the cigarette company) the question the validity of the dangers of second hand smoke, and even lobbied the US government to try and stop health reforms.
-
What I DIDN'T hear him say is that man has had no affect on the planet... which seems to be the rant from a few of you.
.... Climate change, sure. Man made, laughable....There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming. If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job. You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?
I didn't hear him say anything either, but what i read seems direct to the point...how did you interpret this?
.....................................................................
The ORIGINAL topic was what changes in the environment, in regards to fishing, have you noticed recently? Let's stick to that.
ok, last Saturday they called for rain and/ or light snow in Chilliwack with a mean temperature of -2 ...I dressed accordingly only to cook under a slight over cast with periodical sunshine and temperatures hovering around 4....
lately, I've noticed the weather man sucking at predicting the weather. :)
-
lately, I've noticed the weather man sucking at predicting the weather.
They kind of always do... Because of how complex the atmospheric system is, and the fact that we really dont know exactly how it all works, weather predictions work on 3 scales.
The 24-hour scale is usually pretty damn accurate.
The 72-hour scale is decent, but gets less useful by the end.
The week+ scale is garbage. The system is more complex than we understand it, so we lack the ability to accurately forecast what will change in this long of a time period.
-
One thing I wouldn't consider "normal"...
I observed button up fry (one step up from alevin - already emerging from gravel) North island (either sockeye or coho, didn't take a close enough look) a week ago.
The time salmon eggs take to hatch depends on the water temperature - lower water temps means it takes longer to hatch... So if you are seeing the fry earlier than usual, I would be willing to guess water temperatures are higher than normal.
If I am not mistaken, its a pretty linear relationship too - it takes a certain number of degree-days for the eggs to hatch. Lets say its 90 degree-days(just a random number for example.) Thats only 10 days of 9 degree water, but 20 days of 4.5 degree water.
I can't remember if alevin use up their yolks sacks faster in warmer water though..
-
You all worry about global warming. There is some thing worse than that coming to a shore near your. Our so called friends in Japan are sending us an never ending supply of radiation. This is going to be in your food, water, soil, etc. This is going to affect your families health. There is going to be a rise in all number of different cancers.
They say Fukushima was an world changing event. Some say a extinction event. What every one should become aware of is what low level radiation can do to you.
There is a number of good web sites with lots of information on what is really happening. Don't look to main stream media or the goverment for they have there own agenda of false science.
Rense and Coast to Coast are a couple of the best.
Anyone heard about the carbon credit market. Who do you think benifits from gobal warming. Could be that one of the former vice presidents of the U.S.A has become a very rich man due to formation of the carbon credit market. Wouldn't happen to be the guy that brought global warming to the forefront.
I'd suggest you frequent the forum I suggested for TNAngler as well.
Here is something else everyone should be scared of: Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html). Scary stuff.
-
I'd suggest you frequent the forum I suggested for TNAngler as well.
Here is something else everyone should be scared of: Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html). Scary stuff.
This is a joke right?? That website looks fraudulent as all hell. And wtf is the US Environmental Assessment Center? Click on the logo and it doesn't go anywhere...
And here is my favorite part!
"A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways."
-
Di = 2
hydrogen = the most common element in the universe
Mono = 1
oxygen = the gas
put ' em all together and what have got?
H20 - commonly known as water
-
This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.
You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.
Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change. Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change. Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced. This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.
The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.
What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"? No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda. Where would the money come from? If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research. That should be self-evident to even a half-wit. Look at which scientists lost their job recently. Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding. Experimental Lakes Are: shut down. Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.
Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better. Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid. Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.
I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.
Alright, well, since you drink the koolaid this might be a little harder to explain.
"Hockey stick"? Seriously? That is the first thing you are going to pull out? That thing was found to be a piece of crap years ago because the data was cherry picked. Even people claiming bad things are happening and it is all man's fault don't use that anymore, well, maybe Al Gore still does but that guy is just a joke. So yes, the "scientific community" is in complete agreement that the hockey stick you speak about is complete BS.
As I said previously, the Earth has been through many changes in temperature. Google ice age, mini-ice age (which we are now coming out of), Medieval warm period. These all happened way before the Industrial Revolution except the mini-ice age which was already going on during then. What caused all of those? The weather changes, it goes in cycles.
The North pole might not be growing, the South pole hit a new record. Oh, wait, oh no, does that mean the world is going to get bottom heavy or something?
All of these scientists that are telling you things are warming/changing and it is man's fault, who pays them? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. So who is paying them? A vast majority of them are funded by the government. Which option does gov't prefer? That climate change is caused mainly by humans or that it just happens? Well, I guess it depends who is in gov't. One option (it is man made) gives them a right, no, a responsibility to pass laws and restrict people's rights for the good of the planet. The other doesn't. I'm sure since you are so good with google you can search and find plenty of scientists who have come out saying that man made global warming/climate change is complete crap. You will also find that most of them have lost their funding. So, if you tote the gov't desired line, you get paid, you don't, you lose your job. Is it any wonder that a majority of them "agree".
And oil companies do have a lot of money but they can't compare with the power created by all of the governments that met in Denmark a couple years back. The oil company money is a drop in the bucket compared to that.
As far as models go, I work with models every day. I project stuff out with them some 40 or 50 years. Models are very finicky, especially out 50 years. Heck, anything more than the first ten shouldn't get a lot of consideration. And the number of inputs that I have is way fewer than those that go into a climate model. And there are interactions between inputs that we don't fully understand. Like many things, models like this are garbage in, garbage out. I can be off on one of my assumptions less than 1% but if it is an important assumption my results 50 years out could be off by 50%. Listen to what the people shouting the loudest about this say. The models have shown them that this is going to happen with a 95% certainty. As stated elsewhere, weathermen can't even predict the weather for the next 3 days with 95% certainty. Go back and look at the claims made in the 70s, 80s, 90s of what was going to happen and when. How many of those came true? Trust me, it is very easy to fit a model to reproduce historical results accurately which gives you confidence that it will predict things going forward but there is all kinds of bias built into models like that because it was built to fit a certain set of data points.
I am not saying man has no effect. We can very easily destroy all kinds of things through pollution. 8 legged frogs and turtles with 2 heads and all of that can easily be caused by man. There are many things that affect temperature and ice accumulation at the poles and all of that. Our contribution to that is very very small. To think otherwise is to give ourselves way too much importance.
What is the newest pollution they are complaining about? Carbon Dioxide. The stuff you breath out. The stuff plants use to make oxygen. We have to stop making that though. The world is going to burn up because there is too much carbon dioxide. So, if you believe that, do me a favor. Take your hands, put them around your throat. Now squeeze really hard. You have to keep that carbon dioxide from leaking out so make sure the grip is really tight. When you wake back up, repeat.
-
The time salmon eggs take to hatch depends on the water temperature - lower water temps means it takes longer to hatch... So if you are seeing the fry earlier than usual, I would be willing to guess water temperatures are higher than normal.
If I am not mistaken, its a pretty linear relationship too - it takes a certain number of degree-days for the eggs to hatch. Lets say its 90 degree-days(just a random number for example.) Thats only 10 days of 9 degree water, but 20 days of 4.5 degree water.
I can't remember if alevin use up their yolks sacks faster in warmer water though..
I'm very well aware of Accumulated Thermal Units. It is indeed the case that the water temperatures are higher than normal, but what consequences will this have when we are now (at this present time) going into a cold snap, and the water temp will decrease drastically (especially being low). Hopefully this doesn't have a huge negative impact on future salmon stocks with mass die off of already button up fry searching for food when NORMALLY they would still be in eggs.
And yes, it is linear. It is based on egg size. This is why steelhead can lay their eggs now and have them hatch quickly vs a chinook that lays its eggs in September which have their eggs hatch around the same time the steelhead eggs do.
My main concern is we are already seeing species like coho and sockeye up island buttoning up, when it's very possible for the weather to quickly become cold. I'd love to find out what a large change in water temp would do to these young fish (or small stagnant pools where coho like to sit at this stage will probably die due to freezing solid at a cold enough temp). What about food supply (insects can go from being active during warm to completely dormant quickly)? According to one of my friends north island there were pinks heading for the ocean over Christmas in the Port McNeill area. What consequences will that have for those fish that are hitting an ocean with no algae blooms, pretty much devoid of what they would normally eat? Lots of what if's, it will be interesting to see what happens down the road in a few cycles...
And sorry for the whole climate change debate. I wasn't trying to get onto that. I am more so trying to figure out what other people have seen this year that is abnormal. The robin thing that someone posted earlier is helpful. It's not just fish apparently that are messed up. It will be interesting to see future trends and see if indeed winter run steelhead will change run timing along with other anadromous fish (I know coho on the island peaked mid November this year, a month late - most likely due to low water though).
-
On some northern flows I have seen an increase in parasites on salmon I've caught and a decrease in size.
particularly what people call 'zits' on coho. growing exponentially in the last 3 to 4 years.................. and the springs I caught got smaller and smaller.
pinks run every year as well. and there was an increase in my eyes with sea lice.... that started about 10 years ago.
TNA, hate to burst your bubble man, but corporations trump government. If that wasn't the case, all resources would be nationalized, education would be free and a country would own it's own currency. Yes politicians are morally obligated to act in the people's best interest. However, they are not the ones in power. The changes necessary will not take place when the ones with power will lose money.
-
The North pole might not be growing, the South pole hit a new record. Oh, wait, oh no, does that mean the world is going to get bottom heavy or something?
All of these scientists that are telling you things are warming/changing and it is man's fault, who pays them? They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart. So who is paying them? A vast majority of them are funded by the government.
the Arctic Ice Cap and the Antarctic cap are different in that one is sea ice the other is continental ice. Also in what hemisphere are the highest amount of GW gases emitted?
for those who wish to know more your can look at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html
You're 2nd sentence comes close to paranoia. Do you really think Government's want to create a myth of global warming? What do you suppose they want to accomplish? That scientists are so easy to manipulate with money explains why the Harper government is so keen to control what they say in public. You do realize most of these scientists are tenured university professors and so fairly removed from political influence. Governments also do not directly dole out money to scientists there are usually various funds boards and so on that control such funds not all of which, perhaps not even more than 50% that come from government.
You should also provide full disclosure on your involvement in modeling just to be sure you are not misrepresenting something you do at home with your stock portfolio as a professional expertise,
-
There is not a good God damn thing any of us can do about the situation, so why keep trying to prove something that can't be proved by what ever science the present governments currently use? All we can do is stay somewhat informed about our own back yard and try to be environmentally conscious. To me that is the one thing that the "global warming" got across to the general public... CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN MESS!
I've been around longer than most of you and I've heard all the dire predictions over the past 55 years when I first started paying attention to those things. Not ONE scientific prediction came true in all that time. But, in each case it DID make the public more aware of what was happening around them. I remember back in the 1950s when Canada was predicted to have a population of over 300 million people by the year 2000. Didn't happen. Then there was the AIDS scare where most of us were going to be dead by the year 2000. I sure see a lot of lively dead people walking around. We were supposed to run out of petrol by 2014, but I still see people buying fuel guzzling big trucks. I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt.
-
There is not a good God damn thing any of us can do about the situation, so why keep trying to prove something that can't be proved by what ever science the present governments currently use? All we can do is stay somewhat informed about our own back yard and try to be environmentally conscious. To me that is the one thing that the "global warming" got across to the general public... CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN MESS!
I've been around longer than most of you and I've heard all the dire predictions over the past 55 years when I first started paying attention to those things. Not ONE scientific prediction came true in all that time. But, in each case it DID make the public more aware of what was happening around them. I remember back in the 1950s when Canada was predicted to have a population of over 300 million people by the year 2000. Didn't happen. Then there was the AIDS scare where most of us were going to be dead by the year 2000. I sure see a lot of lively dead people walking around. We were supposed to run out of petrol by 2014, but I still see people buying fuel guzzling big trucks. I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt.
X2
-
There is not a good God damn thing any of us can do about the situation, so why keep trying to prove something that can't be proved by what ever science the present governments currently use? All we can do is stay somewhat informed about our own back yard and try to be environmentally conscious. To me that is the one thing that the "global warming" got across to the general public... CLEAN UP YOUR OWN DAMN MESS!
I've been around longer than most of you and I've heard all the dire predictions over the past 55 years when I first started paying attention to those things. Not ONE scientific prediction came true in all that time. But, in each case it DID make the public more aware of what was happening around them. I remember back in the 1950s when Canada was predicted to have a population of over 300 million people by the year 2000. Didn't happen. Then there was the AIDS scare where most of us were going to be dead by the year 2000. I sure see a lot of lively dead people walking around. We were supposed to run out of petrol by 2014, but I still see people buying fuel guzzling big trucks. I take all scientific studies with a grain of salt.
Sorry, Ian, but I must disagree with your first statement, and will point out that it contradicts your last one in that first paragraph. There is not a thing we cannot do about, we just need the collective will to act. One of the reasons why many of the prediction you speak of don't come true is because we acted to do something about it. The reason why we did not all die of AIDs is because we educated people about it, we started screening our blood supplies for it, and we studied it to better understand it and treat it. Fear is a powerful motivator. It stopped an entire generation from having frequent unprotected sex. While I am sure Trogan made a killing on their increased condom sales since the 80s, I do not for a moment believe they engineered the AIDs scare to increase profits. The epidemic happened (is still happening in many countries where education is not as prevalent), and we did something about it. Burying our heads in the sand is not going make our problems go away, and however much that might seem the easier way to go. We also live in a democracy where you not only have the power to choose your government, you have a responsibility to act and choose a government that is going to act in your best interest. There is a reason why forest companies stopped clear-cut logging right to the banks of salmon streams, even though that was more profitable. It was because people acted and did something about it. Apathy is never an answer. It is the reason why we are going to have to fight those same battles again. People lose sight of the fact that we gain from others making difficult choices and making a difference. We look around us and go "Oh, things are not as bad as they predicted so they must have been wrong, I guess I can go on taking the easy road and everything will be fine." Tell your grandkids to go back to your swinging lifestyle of the 70s an see how long they last before contracting AIDs. We can do something about these problems, we have already stopped many predictions from coming true, but we must Act to do so. We have responsibility to do so. Doing nothing is not an option, and changing your own behaviour is only the beginning. We must move from "me" to "we" if we are ever going to make real change. Be the change you want to see in world.
-
There is big difference between Weather(local conditions) which are very difficult to forecast and Climate (long term patterns in weather). We need to stop using these terms as though they are interchangeable.
-
the Arctic Ice Cap and the Antarctic cap are different in that one is sea ice the other is continental ice. Also in what hemisphere are the highest amount of GW gases emitted?
for those who wish to know more your can look at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html
You're 2nd sentence comes close to paranoia. Do you really think Government's want to create a myth of global warming? What do you suppose they want to accomplish? That scientists are so easy to manipulate with money explains why the Harper government is so keen to control what they say in public. You do realize most of these scientists are tenured university professors and so fairly removed from political influence. Governments also do not directly dole out money to scientists there are usually various funds boards and so on that control such funds not all of which, perhaps not even more than 50% that come from government.
You should also provide full disclosure on your involvement in modeling just to be sure you are not misrepresenting something you do at home with your stock portfolio as a professional expertise,
Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders. Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research. Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program. That is just one program. If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy? And where do the universities get the money? A tenured professor earns most of his money through research. A lot of that is government grants too. Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.
Also, gov't isn't there to protect you. That is their stated goal, sure. How do they protect you though? By believing you are too stupid to take care of yourself and protect yourself so they have to protect you from yourself. Why do you have to wear seatbelts? It isn't because they are worried you might hurt someone else. It is to protect you from your own stupidity. They protect you through controlling you. If that is fine with you, well good for you, but I can take care of myself.
Modeling is my job and I get paid well to do it. I model insurance assets, reserves, premium, policy count, expenses, anything that goes into an insurance policy's profit or cash flows. I started this year's models with about 8.4 billion in starting assets. I project them out somewhere between 30 and 50 years. This information gets reviewed by multiple states, the Federal Reserve, AM Best and any other rating agency. I would be willing to bet that I know more about modeling than you do. Modeling out as far into the future requires that they have a very good handle on all of the assumptions. Small miscalculations can cause results just 5 years out to be completely unreliable.
Let me give you an example I am very familiar with. When Long Term Care insurance (to pay for nursing home stays) when it first came out companies weren't sure on the assumptions. Most of the assumptions they got right but one assumption, lapses (people cancelling their insurance) they missed on. The projected it would start at 8% and grade down over 10-15 years to 3% and stayed there. With that, the companies were projected to make a bunch of money. The rates didn't stop at 3%, they kept dropping down to 1.5% or 1% or even lower for some companies. This product that was going to be a huge profit machine for companies with just that one change in assumption caused many insurance companies to almost have to close down. They lost so much money. This one assumption starting 10-15 years out turned billions of dollars in profit to billions in losses.
The climate model has to have a lot more moving parts. You are sure that their assumptions 15 to 20 to 100 years from now are accurate and they aren't missing any interactions? And they just in the last couple months figured out how vents in the ocean bottom affect currents or something major to their models. That was a huge piece they couldn't figure out. Their models also assume no major shocks to the system. They might assume the same basic pattern of volcano eruptions that we have seen over the last 100 years or so but what happens when another major eruption happens? Another Mt Pinatubo (sp?).
We have fewer assumptions than the climate models need and we realize our results 10+ years out are very unlikely to happen. If they believe with more assumptions and still many unknowns that their models are accurate out 10-100 years, they are either arrogant beyond reason or stupid.
-
There is big difference between Weather(local conditions) which are very difficult to forecast and Climate (long term patterns in weather). We need to stop using these terms as though they are interchangeable.
Your post makes it seem like long term weather patterns are easier to predict than short term local conditions. Sure there is variability, but there is variability in long term conditions too.
-
Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders.
not true and I fail to see how this is relevant
Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research. Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program. That is just one program. If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy? And where do the universities get the money? A tenured professor earns most of his money through research. A lot of that is government grants too. Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.
what corporations have a vested interest in the climate change debate? Certainly not the oil interests etc (sarcasm). Obama requested 2.6 billion. Did he get it? What did he get? What was that as a % of the US Federal Budget? This and the rest goes nowhere close to your assertions
-
not true and I fail to see how this is relevant
what corporations have a vested interest in the climate change debate? Certainly not the oil interests etc (sarcasm). Obama requested 2.6 billion. Did he get it? What did he get? What was that as a % of the US Federal Budget? This and the rest goes nowhere close to your assertions
Yes, obviously the oil companies have a vested interested. 2.6 billion for one project. A quick search provided this link
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf)
I trust that the CBO (for those who don't know, that is the United States Congressional Budget Office, a supposedly non-partisan entity) is a sufficiently reliable source.
From 98 to 09, about 99 billion spent by the US. More than a third of that was spent in 09. For those with difficulty with math, that is over 33 billion in 1 year for just the US. You can read the whole report if you wish. That includes money for technology (ie wind farms and stuff). If climate change wasn't a worry, 33 billion a year could be removed from the US budget, gas companies could spend less. How many people are employed because of that 33 billion figure? How many of them want to lose their jobs because the theory their work supports (that man is causing a majority of the climate change) is not true?
-
TNA Believes seatbelts are forced to protect you from your own stupidity. Never mind people hitting you, or when hit that the non seatbelt wearing people will projectile into others killing vehicle occupants.
There are some sound minds here, but holy Fin jumping monkey balls are some if you out to lunch.
-
Your post makes it seem like long term weather patterns are easier to predict than short term local conditions. Sure there is variability, but there is variability in long term conditions too.
It is, in the sense that it is easier to predict what the climate in the lower mainland will be like on February 10th 2015 than it is to predict what the weather will be like on February 10th 2014.
-
Corporations exist for one purpose, to make money for their owner/shareholders. Only corporations that are vested in the outcome of the climate change debate can really put any money into that type of research. Obama last year requested $2.6 billion for the US Global Change Research Program. That is just one program. If you think anybody from that agency came out and said "Nope, we don't really have much of an effect and there is not much we can do" that the people getting that 2.6 billion to research would be happy? And where do the universities get the money? A tenured professor earns most of his money through research. A lot of that is government grants too. Sure, it might go through some channels to get there.
Also, gov't isn't there to protect you. That is their stated goal, sure. How do they protect you though? By believing you are too stupid to take care of yourself and protect yourself so they have to protect you from yourself. Why do you have to wear seatbelts? It isn't because they are worried you might hurt someone else. It is to protect you from your own stupidity. They protect you through controlling you. If that is fine with you, well good for you, but I can take care of myself.
Modeling is my job and I get paid well to do it. I model insurance assets, reserves, premium, policy count, expenses, anything that goes into an insurance policy's profit or cash flows. I started this year's models with about 8.4 billion in starting assets. I project them out somewhere between 30 and 50 years. This information gets reviewed by multiple states, the Federal Reserve, AM Best and any other rating agency. I would be willing to bet that I know more about modeling than you do. Modeling out as far into the future requires that they have a very good handle on all of the assumptions. Small miscalculations can cause results just 5 years out to be completely unreliable.
Let me give you an example I am very familiar with. When Long Term Care insurance (to pay for nursing home stays) when it first came out companies weren't sure on the assumptions. Most of the assumptions they got right but one assumption, lapses (people cancelling their insurance) they missed on. The projected it would start at 8% and grade down over 10-15 years to 3% and stayed there. With that, the companies were projected to make a bunch of money. The rates didn't stop at 3%, they kept dropping down to 1.5% or 1% or even lower for some companies. This product that was going to be a huge profit machine for companies with just that one change in assumption caused many insurance companies to almost have to close down. They lost so much money. This one assumption starting 10-15 years out turned billions of dollars in profit to billions in losses.
The climate model has to have a lot more moving parts. You are sure that their assumptions 15 to 20 to 100 years from now are accurate and they aren't missing any interactions? And they just in the last couple months figured out how vents in the ocean bottom affect currents or something major to their models. That was a huge piece they couldn't figure out. Their models also assume no major shocks to the system. They might assume the same basic pattern of volcano eruptions that we have seen over the last 100 years or so but what happens when another major eruption happens? Another Mt Pinatubo (sp?).
We have fewer assumptions than the climate models need and we realize our results 10+ years out are very unlikely to happen. If they believe with more assumptions and still many unknowns that their models are accurate out 10-100 years, they are either arrogant beyond reason or stupid.
in my line of work what you speak of refers to projection not assumption...educated and calculated forecast based on history with formulated adjustments to account to the demographics and needs of a population...in layman's term supply and demand.
the problem with your theory is you base everything on a linear model where patterns allow for natural occurrences, but you fail to incorporate occurrences created by humans...variances that get thrown into the mix and have created havoc in our overall climate scheme... chernobyl, hiroshima, nagasaki, 9/ll, gulf war and the burning of 600 kuwait oil wells, exxon valdez spill, fukushima,...etc, etc... and we're not even talking the many world wide incinerators and fossil fuel burning factories and vehicle emissions that create gases that get into the atmosphere...forget the conspiracy theory and just open your eyes.
-
Definite warming trend on this thread!!! ::)
I may have missed it, but did anyone consider the possibility that we are still coming out of the previous ice age? Many of the global temperature charts I've seen usually start at the bottom of a temperature dip, whether it be from the Little Ice Age ( low point during the 1600s), the last Big One 22000 y.a., or some other.
A good explanation and visual can also be found on http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
Another thing to consider: are not the oceans the Earth's major source of global weather patterns, oxygen, biomass, and water? It's a little difficult to affect the huge currents, which run both shallow, then deep, and back again unless the continents are drastically shifted.
Just sayin'.
-
it's not just about weather pattern in general...it's what's in it and how it affects the balance of ecology...we're talking long term consequences...biology 101...google photosynthesis/acid rain/and ph balance of soil then factor in all the variables.
it's not enough to say it's a natural cycle we're in when thousands of years ago pollution didn't play a role in the equation.
-
the only thing man made about global warming, is the idea. its settled no more arguments. there is only real proof in math, in the real physical word no such thing exists. theories can never be proven, people just put confidence in them.
-
Definite warming trend on this thread!!! ::)
I may have missed it, but did anyone consider the possibility that we are still coming out of the previous ice age? Many of the global temperature charts I've seen usually start at the bottom of a temperature dip, whether it be from the Little Ice Age ( low point during the 1600s), the last Big One 22000 y.a., or some other.
A good explanation and visual can also be found on http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
Another thing to consider: are not the oceans the Earth's major source of global weather patterns, oxygen, biomass, and water? It's a little difficult to affect the huge currents, which run both shallow, then deep, and back again unless the continents are drastically shifted.
Just sayin'.
Sigh. Too many deniers here posting links with no credible resources claiming them as fact.
Let the scientists that dedicate their lives for ONE specific thing to publish research papers of their findings. These are called experts. Anyone else INCLUDING YOU PEOPLE are spreading a disease of misinformation.
Next up we'll have the Anti Vaxxers here with the flat earths
-
Ya I find it hard to believe that some of you have the power to actually vote yet you think humans have no influence over the environment.
I don't think a water supply has ever been ruined extracting energy. forests around industries never ever have trees that look dead and not growing. there are never any warnings about eating shellfish around industries dumping their crap in the water.
there is no such thing as smog. the chinese wear masks for fashion. and acid rain is a song prince had to scrap and went with purple instead.
-
in my line of work what you speak of refers to projection not assumption...educated and calculated forecast based on history with formulated adjustments to account to the demographics and needs of a population...in layman's term supply and demand.
the problem with your theory is you base everything on a linear model where patterns allow for natural occurrences, but you fail to incorporate occurrences created by humans...variances that get thrown into the mix and have created havoc in our overall climate scheme... chernobyl, hiroshima, nagasaki, 9/ll, gulf war and the burning of 600 kuwait oil wells, exxon valdez spill, fukushima,...etc, etc... and we're not even talking the many world wide incinerators and fossil fuel burning factories and vehicle emissions that create gases that get into the atmosphere...forget the conspiracy theory and just open your eyes.
Yes, I make a projection of what will occur. Built into that project are layers and layers and layers of assumptions.
What they do to project the climate forward is very similar. And there is nothing linear about my models. There are extreme shock scenarios that are built in. Are there extreme shock scenarios built into their models? I don't know, I would assume so. If you are going to build a proper model, you build in a certain percent chance of an event occurring and let stochastic scenario generators generate the random numbers that then fit into the probability distribution of what occurs.
I remember many stories and seen many pictures from back in the day where acid rain killed entire forests. That might still happen in China but it no longer happens here. Our vehicle emissions are mostly CO2 and water. We have put scrubbers on power plants so that they are very clean. Yes, accidents happen. Take the deep water gulf leak. How horrible did they predict that was going to be? Thousands of miles of beaches were going to be covered in oil. What happened? Pretty much nothing because deep sea oil leaks happen all the time without us doing anything and the Earth is built to handle those. Exxon Valdez, bunch of animals died but the area is recovering much better than all of the dire warnings predicted.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to take care of our planet and yes, disasters happen and can hurt the environment. Those you listed have very little effect on the climate. Yes, atomic explosions can throw particles into the air that shield some sunlight and cool the Earth. A single volcano eruption can do much worse. I think you are confusing ruining the environment and climate change. They are not the same. I'm not saying we should all go dump all our trash into our rivers because it won't have an effect. I'm not going to stop driving my truck because I think it is going to cause Florida to be under water.
-
TNA Believes seatbelts are forced to protect you from your own stupidity. Never mind people hitting you, or when hit that the non seatbelt wearing people will projectile into others killing vehicle occupants.
There are some sound minds here, but holy Fin jumping monkey balls are some if you out to lunch.
If someone hits you and you aren't wearing your seatbelt and you get thrown from your car, you are still the stupid one. If you are driving and let someone ride in your car not wear a seatbelt and you crash and they projectile into the back of your head, killing you, that is your own stupidity, and theirs. It is like if you get diagnosed with cancer, stage 2, very treatable. We can do surgery and radiation and chemo and you have a high chance of surviving, or you can just turn you back on all that and possibly survive it but chances are you will die. If you turn down the treatment for no good reason, that would be pretty stupid. Seatbelts are provided to keep you safe. If you choose not to wear them or let others not wear them, you are playing Russian Roulette. Or do you think the gov't should force people to get treatment for cancer too?
-
It is, in the sense that it is easier to predict what the climate in the lower mainland will be like on February 10th 2015 than it is to predict what the weather will be like on February 10th 2014.
Now this is just dumb. If you had said it would be easier to predict what the climate on the lower mainland would be for the month of February 2015 than it is for February 10th this year, maybe. If you are going to tell me that you can predict what the weather will be like on a specific day next year, you are fooling yourself. Even if I gave you a 5 degree cushion, I bet you would be wrong more than you are right in 10 tries as would anybody else. That is just pure luck.
Let me put it in terms of life insurance that I have to explain a lot. I can't predict when you will die exactly. I can provide probability distributions. Get a 1000 people exactly like you and I could tell you 1 or 2 or whatever will die in the next year. If you want to say the weather in winter or in February might average a certain temperature or a certain amount of snow or anything like that, fine. Saying you can predict on a specific day, not a chance.
-
it's not just about weather pattern in general...it's what's in it and how it affects the balance of ecology...we're talking long term consequences...biology 101...google photosynthesis/acid rain/and ph balance of soil then factor in all the variables.
it's not enough to say it's a natural cycle we're in when thousands of years ago pollution didn't play a role in the equation.
You are not discussing climate, you are discussing environment issues. If you want to say "If the earth warms, the chemicals we have released will become more potent and cause greater problem" great. And nobody is proposing we just go dump a bunch of crap everywhere.
-
Sigh. Too many deniers here posting links with no credible resources claiming them as fact.
Let the scientists that dedicate their lives for ONE specific thing to publish research papers of their findings. These are called experts. Anyone else INCLUDING YOU PEOPLE are spreading a disease of misinformation.
Next up we'll have the Anti Vaxxers here with the flat earths
You make me laugh. Someone that has dedicated their lives for ONE specific thing. That makes it sound even worse for them being unbiased. Not only will their money dry up if there is very minimal man made effect on the climate, but now they have an entire life's work and the only thing they have trained for that goes away. This is the person you are going to listen to without any critical thinking? I don't trust anything anybody says at face value because they do not have my interest at heart, they have their own. You can't deny they have a vested financial interest in there being man made climate change. It is like trusting the salesman that gets a commission that you don't want to buy the cheaper car because it is a piece of crap, but this one over here that is twice as much will be much better for you. He has a financial interest in me picking the more expensive one. These scientists have their grants and their entire life's work based on the fact that man is causing most of this change.
-
Back to DHMO... The site's main purpose is show how credible websites can LOOK, while providing information that is true (eg., DHMO is found in 100% of all cancer cells,etc.), but coming to an erroneous conclusion (ie., DHMO is killing us). My kids were shown that site by teachers as a reason to be cautious when selecting and citing websites in their research. My kids and I had a great laugh, especially when they said that many students were totally up in arms over the whole thing.
Check it out yourself- it's pretty well done!
Never took a philosophy class, but I imagine there's an "if...then" sorta thing surrounding this.
-
I may have missed it, but did anyone consider the possibility that we are still coming out of the previous ice age? Many of the global temperature charts I've seen usually start at the bottom of a temperature dip, whether it be from the Little Ice Age ( low point during the 1600s), the last Big One 22000 y.a., or some other.
A good explanation and visual can also be found on http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
Yes, you missed it. I have already pointed it out, but you missed the crucial aspect of my point which is the fact that we are in the midst of an Ice Age (Quaternary Period) which has lasted for two million years and saw the development of large masses of polar ice, we are not "coming out" of one...not yet. What we are coming out of was a period of glaciation when global ice masses were growing (the last major period was the Weichselian/Wisconsin Glaciation), putting us in an interglacial period when ice masses are shrinking. However, the fact that the earth has its own rhythms of warming and cooling, and that in all likelihood another period of Glaciation is in our future, does not take away from the prospect that we are having a profound impact on those rhythms. During the past billion years, there have been numerous cases of animal species going extinct, long before humans crawls out of the primordial ooze. That does not mean that we humans cannot and have not had profound impact on global biodiversity as we have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species. It also doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to be mindful of the impact we are having and to evaluate and mitigate the negative consequences of that impact for the sake of our descendants.
-
Now this is just dumb. If you had said it would be easier to predict what the climate on the lower mainland would be for the month of February 2015 than it is for February 10th this year, maybe. If you are going to tell me that you can predict what the weather will be like on a specific day next year, you are fooling yourself. Even if I gave you a 5 degree cushion, I bet you would be wrong more than you are right in 10 tries as would anybody else. That is just pure luck.
No. What is dumb is that you substituted "weather " for "climate " again after I told you they were two different things.
-
Ya I find it hard to believe that some of you have the power to actually vote yet you think humans have no influence over the environment.
I don't think a water supply has ever been ruined extracting energy. forests around industries never ever have trees that look dead and not growing. there are never any warnings about eating shellfish around industries dumping their crap in the water.
there is no such thing as smog. the chinese wear masks for fashion. and acid rain is a song prince had to scrap and went with purple instead.
Environment is not the same as climate. We can easily destroy a water supply and forests and contaminate water. Nobody is denying acid rain is bad. That has no effect on how much rain Vancouver gets in the next three years, what the average temperature will be in Vancouver 10 years from now, or anything like that.
Take a look at light bulbs. The incandescent light bulb, cheap to make, no harmful materials, easy to use. Those are now taboo and being completely phased out in the states. Why? Because they use too much energy and so we have to have more coal plants to provide power. Instead, we will have to buy CFLs. The ones where if you break them, you risk mercury poisoning in cleaning it up along with a bunch of other harmful things. The old light bulbs you could throw in the trash with very little harm to the environment. How many people are in the lower mainland? How many CFLs are broken and thrown away in a way that puts mercury into our water supply? You willing to tell me that the amount of coal power that was saved by not allowing incandescent bulbs is worth that? The environment is taking a hit to prevent man made climate change.
-
Yes, obviously the oil companies have a vested interested. 2.6 billion for one project. A quick search provided this link
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-climatechange.pdf)
I trust that the CBO (for those who don't know, that is the United States Congressional Budget Office, a supposedly non-partisan entity) is a sufficiently reliable source.
From 98 to 09, about 99 billion spent by the US. More than a third of that was spent in 09. For those with difficulty with math, that is over 33 billion in 1 year for just the US. You can read the whole report if you wish. That includes money for technology (ie wind farms and stuff). If climate change wasn't a worry, 33 billion a year could be removed from the US budget, gas companies could spend less. How many people are employed because of that 33 billion figure? How many of them want to lose their jobs because the theory their work supports (that man is causing a majority of the climate change) is not true?
Can't see in that report where the 99 billion or the 33 billion (over '09 ) comes from. Actual spending in '09 outside the ARRA was 7.5 billion. Much of that was directed at technology. Technology is also aimed at alternate energy and energy conservation or efficiency. It's been a US goal since the 70s to reduce dependence on oil since significant supply comes from off shore. Actual climate science is much lower, well under a billion in '09. Even at that so what? Federal spending in the US is on the order of 3500 billion. None of the this goes to the claim, for which you offer no substantiation, that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy established by government and climate science academics are corruptly complicit in this supposed conspiracy.
-
No. What is dumb is that you substituted "weather " for "climate " again after I told you they were two different things.
Snort. Ok, well, climate is, by definition the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Speaking of climate on a specific day is meaningless which is what you did. I had to go with the basis you put forth in your statement which was flawed to begin with.
-
Yes, you missed it. I have already pointed it out, but you missed the crucial aspect of my point which is the fact that we are in the midst of an Ice Age (Quaternary Period) which has lasted for two million years and saw the development of large masses of polar ice, we are not "coming out" of one...not yet. What we are coming out of was a period of glaciation when global ice masses were growing (the last major period was the Weichselian/Wisconsin Glaciation), putting us in an interglacial period when ice masses are shrinking. However, the fact that the earth has its own rhythms of warming and cooling, and that in all likelihood another period of Glaciation is in our future, does not take away from the prospect that we are having a profound impact on those rhythms. During the past billion years, there have been numerous cases of animal species going extinct, long before humans crawls out of the primordial ooze. That does not mean that we humans cannot and have not had profound impact on global biodiversity as we have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species. It also doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to be mindful of the impact we are having and to evaluate and mitigate the negative consequences of that impact for the sake of our descendants.
I am all in favor of being mindful of it. What is happening these days is people run around like chicken with their heads cut off, or like Chicken Little. We have to do something, we have to do something now. It doesn't matter if it will help in the long run. Many people pushing this the hardest would rather we all live in huts and had no modern conveniences like the First Nations used to live. Or just die off to save the planet. Just go about it smart and think it through. Don't severely cripple the economy on a knee jerk reaction that we don't even know is going to work.
-
Can't see in that report where the 99 billion or the 33 billion (over '09 ) comes from. Actual spending in '09 outside the ARRA was 7.5 billion. Much of that was directed at technology. Technology is also aimed at alternate energy and energy conservation or efficiency. It's been a US goal since the 70s to reduce dependence on oil since significant supply comes from off shore. Actual climate science is much lower, well under a billion in '09. Even at that so what? Federal spending in the US is on the order of 3500 billion. None of the this goes to the claim, for which you offer no substantiation, that climate change is a hoax or conspiracy established by government and climate science academics are corruptly complicit in this supposed conspiracy.
This was to prove that the gov't pays most of the bills for these scientists and the entire industry. The numbers come from the first page of the report, bottom of the first column going into the second column. This was all an exercise explaining where the money comes from and why the "experts" have a financial interest in keeping this money coming. Do you believe the sales guy trying to sell you a time share when he says what he is offering is actually going to save you money? Hopefully not, because you know he is getting paid by the hotel to say those things. Or the dirty stockbroker pushing hard on a specific stock? Maybe, but chances are he has already bought his shares, you buying shares will cause his shares to be more valuable, and he will cash his out before he cashes you out?
-
This was to prove that the gov't pays most of the bills for these scientists and the entire industry.
It does no such thing. Per the report spending on a wide variety on "Climate Change Programs" was 7.5 billion in 2009. In 2009 the American Recovery and Re-investment Act included an additional 35 billion to be committed (not necessarily spent) over the course of the next year as follows:
Energy
Senate — $40 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $2.9 billion to weatherize modest-income homes; $4.6 billion for fossil fuel research and development; $6.4 billion to clean up nuclear weapons production sites; $11 billion toward a so-called smart electricity grid to reduce waste; $8.5 billion to subsidize loans for renewable energy projects; and $2 billion for advanced battery systems.
House — $28.4 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, including $6.2 billion to weatherize homes; $11 billion to fund a smart electricity grid.
note there isn't any mention of pure climate science research. Note most of it relates to existing conventional infrastructure. Even if more was provided for that it does nothing to substantiate wild allegations of hoax and complicity by scientist to get money in a corrupt fashion. Such allegations are baseless smears.
Are even trying to get informed before making statements? These diatribes are starting to appear to be mere trolling IMO. Your comments about seat belt laws are similarly uninformed. Were you even around when that came into law in BC? Considerable public pressure had to be placed on government to get them to put that into law. The overwhelming majority of people were already wearing them as it was and the law was to get the last 30% or so to comply.
-
It does no such thing. Per the report spending on a wide variety on "Climate Change Programs" was 7.5 billion in 2009. In 2009 the American Recovery and Re-investment Act included an additional 35 billion to be committed (not necessarily spent) over the course of the next year as follows:
note there isn't any mention of pure climate science research. Note most of it relates to existing conventional infrastructure. Even if more was provided for that it does nothing to substantiate wild allegations of hoax and complicity by scientist to get money in a corrupt fashion. Such allegations are baseless smears.
Are even trying to get informed before making statements? These diatribes are starting to appear to be mere trolling IMO. Your comments about seat belt laws are similarly uninformed. Were you even around when that came into law in BC? Considerable public pressure had to be placed on government to get them to put that into law. The overwhelming majority of people were already wearing them as it was and the law was to get the last 30% or so to comply.
I can't do your homework for you. Follow the money. If you refuse to believe that there is a huge conflict of interest in this, that is your fault. There have been some scientists that have spoken up. They get shouted down and ostracized for it. Do you think all of the companies that give "protection" money to the mob support the mob and think it is a great thing? Do you think they are corrupt for paying the money or do you think they are too afraid of ending up in the river or with broken fingers or reporting it to a dirty cop? Do you think the climate change community acts much different. You go against "the cause" and they close your business down.
So 70% of the population was smart, 30% were dumb. Seems like a pretty low number of dumb people compared to today. Why did the 30% have to get forced to comply? I understand most people wore them already. I also know the laws were passed to force the others to comply. But why? Why must they comply? Because they are too stupid to decide for themselves? Seatbelts are good and they obviously save lives and I think everyone should wear them. Why the gov't has to force someone to comply with something that is good for them I don't understand. Do you support the gov't tell you that you have to eat so much broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, and tofu every day? You can only eat a very small portion of meat a couple times a week? Can't ever eat fast food? Why or why not? If you aren't eating like that already, then obviously you are too stupid to do what is best for you, your health, and to help you not die from a heart attack. It isn't the gov'ts role in my opinion to protect me from my own stupidity.
-
Yah right. Who is shouting at who now? You can't do your own homework let alone mine. ::)
-
Environment is not the same as climate. We can easily destroy a water supply and forests and contaminate water. Nobody is denying acid rain is bad. That has no effect on how much rain Vancouver gets in the next three years, what the average temperature will be in Vancouver 10 years from now, or anything like that.
Take a look at light bulbs. The incandescent light bulb, cheap to make, no harmful materials, easy to use. Those are now taboo and being completely phased out in the states. Why? Because they use too much energy and so we have to have more coal plants to provide power. Instead, we will have to buy CFLs. The ones where if you break them, you risk mercury poisoning in cleaning it up along with a bunch of other harmful things. The old light bulbs you could throw in the trash with very little harm to the environment. How many people are in the lower mainland? How many CFLs are broken and thrown away in a way that puts mercury into our water supply? You willing to tell me that the amount of coal power that was saved by not allowing incandescent bulbs is worth that? The environment is taking a hit to prevent man made climate change.
My understanding on CFL's and I'm no electrical engineer is that they consume less energy, a 60watt replaced by a 12watt. you also have an 8 to 10x longer life span...... so less 'material' to dispose of. you also have recycling facilities that handle electronic waste and these bulbs. you might have similar incentive programs in the US as us here where you buy LED bulbs and get money back. so yes, if people started worrying about efficiencies you would be burning less coal.
so you think the environment is taking a hit to prevent man made climate chance, but you also said man has no effect on climate change? ???
I think everything we spew out into the environment can and will effect climate. I witnessed my first green christmas in my home town. I've seen a glacier nearly vanish in my life time (smithers). and I have a very very hard time believing its just the cycle of the earth. You have the oceans chemistry changing rapidly because of emissions.....
the thread is "some observations.... what has everyone else seen?" Things are very different in my eyes.... but to deny that we have any influence is really silly man. Especially if your talk about work is legitimate.
There might be a grain of truth in your delusional words, but if the earth is changing naturally, we are accelerating it like gas on a fire.
have you not witnessed any changes in your world? or are things just the same from when you were a little guy fishing with worm and bobber?
-
My understanding on CFL's and I'm no electrical engineer is that they consume less energy, a 60watt replaced by a 12watt. you also have an 8 to 10x longer life span...... so less 'material' to dispose of. you also have recycling facilities that handle electronic waste and these bulbs. you might have similar incentive programs in the US as us here where you buy LED bulbs and get money back. so yes, if people started worrying about efficiencies you would be burning less coal.
so you think the environment is taking a hit to prevent man made climate chance, but you also said man has no effect on climate change? ???
I think everything we spew out into the environment can and will effect climate. I witnessed my first green christmas in my home town. I've seen a glacier nearly vanish in my life time (smithers). and I have a very very hard time believing its just the cycle of the earth. You have the oceans chemistry changing rapidly because of emissions.....
the thread is "some observations.... what has everyone else seen?" Things are very different in my eyes.... but to deny that we have any influence is really silly man. Especially if your talk about work is legitimate.
There might be a grain of truth in your delusional words, but if the earth is changing naturally, we are accelerating it like gas on a fire.
have you not witnessed any changes in your world? or are things just the same from when you were a little guy fishing with worm and bobber?
How many electronics end up in landfills? How many CFL bulbs end up in landfills? How many people actually take the time to make sure they get to the electronics place? I don't think the power plants are having a huge effect on the climate or the environment anymore. I just find it funny that people are so worried about burning less coal which means using products that are less safe for the environment. So much so they have to be specially recycled when you and I both know there are way too many people that don't do that causing a net negative to the environment.
I have seen change. I have seen some hurricanes grow very large, some hit NY, but then I have also seen years with virtually no hurricane activity. People in TX right now are hoping for a hurricane because that is how they get most of their rain but they haven't had one in years. As far a climate, some winters are colder, some are not as harsh, some years have more rain, others have less.
You say we are throwing gas on the fire. By doing what exactly? Breathing? Because I am producing CO2 right now. If you want to fight China because they are completely destroying the environment, great. I support that. There are too many ideas right now that are knee jerk reactions, half cocked plans that aren't thought through and people aren't even sure they will help. It makes them feel better to do something though. Take for instance the big push for ethanol. Huge push. We come to find out there is more pollution made while creating it than we save by using it. But now the corn farmers are reliant on it and have converted so much of the land to corn for it we can't get funding stopped for it. Figure out why the models show with current CO2 levels we should be much warmer than we are. Figure out what the errors are before coming up with a plan. Stop mandating changes until we understand better because we don't understand enough now. If our models are not accurate for the first couple years, the chances they are accurate further out is very remote.
-
we are throwing gas on the fire by continuing in our ways. We are consuming a finite resource. by believing that we have no effect. which are your beliefs....
I actually think people are recycling among other things..... most of the hipsters I live around are pretty boisterous about their knee jerk reactions....... and its almost contagious. maybe put on some skinny jeans, grow a beard and come see for yourself... vancouver is kinda like portland, we just don't have as good beer........ as for how many CFL bulbs end up in land fills.
"EPA estimates that if all the CFLs sold in the U.S. in a year (almost 300 million), we’re dumped in landfills, they would add 0.12 metric tons to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. By comparison, over 150 million metric tons of mercury emissions come from coal-fired electric power plants." http://topbulb.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/cfls-and-mercury-how-much-environmental-damage/
so 0.0000000008% will come from bulbs.
you mentioned earlier about stopping breathing and C02. maybe your unfamiliar with this vast environmental debacle called the tar sands and the stripping of the boreal forest..... or the destruction of rain forest for cattle.... what we are removing to make room for growth is effecting us. and this C02 is not being absorbed. Balance man, we are effecting the balance. madagascar is a scary example right now.
we won't be fighting china. they pretty much own us now (yeaaaaaa harper). The only way that giant economy will slow its environmental abuse is a creation of a middle class where people have time to care.
as for ethanol. my understanding was that it was a push by your corn growers in the states. I'm pretty sure american corn is shipped all over the world as food aid, I also understand its traded as a commodity..... there is also a tremendous use in the sweetening of foods. so you have a push by a supplier to use its product more..... I think the environmental consideration was an after thought. maybe a slick sales pitch.
something like 40 million cars start everyday in your country to drive the economy. how do you stop that without a viable alternative? I don't know how personally.... but you believe we can create models that say our actions have no effect. and can just keep on trucking.
-
we are throwing gas on the fire by continuing in our ways. We are consuming a finite resource. by believing that we have no effect. which are your beliefs....
I actually think people are recycling among other things..... most of the hipsters I live around are pretty boisterous about their knee jerk reactions....... and its almost contagious. maybe put on some skinny jeans, grow a beard and come see for yourself... vancouver is kinda like portland, we just don't have as good beer........ as for how many CFL bulbs end up in land fills.
"EPA estimates that if all the CFLs sold in the U.S. in a year (almost 300 million), we’re dumped in landfills, they would add 0.12 metric tons to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. By comparison, over 150 million metric tons of mercury emissions come from coal-fired electric power plants." http://topbulb.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/cfls-and-mercury-how-much-environmental-damage/
so 0.0000000008% will come from bulbs.
you mentioned earlier about stopping breathing and C02. maybe your unfamiliar with this vast environmental debacle called the tar sands and the stripping of the boreal forest..... or the destruction of rain forest for cattle.... what we are removing to make room for growth is effecting us. and this C02 is not being absorbed. Balance man, we are effecting the balance. madagascar is a scary example right now.
we won't be fighting china. they pretty much own us now (yeaaaaaa harper). The only way that giant economy will slow its environmental abuse is a creation of a middle class where people have time to care.
as for ethanol. my understanding was that it was a push by your corn growers in the states. I'm pretty sure american corn is shipped all over the world as food aid, I also understand its traded as a commodity..... there is also a tremendous use in the sweetening of foods. so you have a push by a supplier to use its product more..... I think the environmental consideration was an after thought. maybe a slick sales pitch.
something like 40 million cars start everyday in your country to drive the economy. how do you stop that without a viable alternative? I don't know how personally.... but you believe we can create models that say our actions have no effect. and can just keep on trucking.
Destroying rain forests and stuff is bad. I think there is more than enough oil to support us through the next century in which time we can find an alternative that actually makes viable sense. Necessity is the mother of all invention. I don't think that in my lifetime we are going to ruin the climate beyond repair but if is found to be the case, then there is your necessity.
I know we can't create models now that accurately predict much of anything. They have been trying to build models for decades that predict what will happen. Almost every one of their predictions has been wrong. Create a model that is reasonably accurate and I may pay attention to it. Right now you have a company that built a program to predict the stock market 50 years ago. Every 10 years or so they come out with a new version. Every time it fails miserably to predict anything and you lose a bunch of money. How many more models do they have to come out with that fail before you tell them to come up with one that is proven to work before you will give them more money? Why are these models any different? They are costing you just as much money if not more. The money is not as direct so it is harder to see I guess.
-
So 70% of the population was smart, 30% were dumb. Seems like a pretty low number of dumb people compared to today. Why did the 30% have to get forced to comply? I understand most people wore them already. I also know the laws were passed to force the others to comply. But why? Why must they comply? Because they are too stupid to decide for themselves? Seatbelts are good and they obviously save lives and I think everyone should wear them. Why the gov't has to force someone to comply with something that is good for them I don't understand. Do you support the gov't tell you that you have to eat so much broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, and tofu every day? You can only eat a very small portion of meat a couple times a week? Can't ever eat fast food? Why or why not? If you aren't eating like that already, then obviously you are too stupid to do what is best for you, your health, and to help you not die from a heart attack. It isn't the gov'ts role in my opinion to protect me from my own stupidity.
You would think that someone in the insurance business would understand that injuries and the medical costs of treating them are drastically reduced when seat belts are worn vs not worn. Not wearing a seat belt cost the medical system (taxpayers) millions in unnecessary costs not to mention increased insurance premiums. Does that mean the research that went into proving that seat belts save lives is somehow flawed, because the scientists and engineers that conducted the research were paid by a government with a vested interest in proving it?
-
Snort. Ok, well, climate is, by definition the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Speaking of climate on a specific day is meaningless which is what you did. I had to go with the basis you put forth in your statement which was flawed to begin with.
Exactly, I said that it would be easier to predict the climate (the prevailing weather conditions in general or over a long period of time) in the Lower Mainland on any given day in February next year (I predict that on 10 February 2015 the climate in the Lower Mainland will be cool and wet with most of the precipitation falling in the winter and less than 10% of which falling as snow at sea level) than it would be to predict the specific local weather on a given day next week.
The point I was making was that people (like you just did) are going from talking about global warming to saying that you cannot predict the weather that far into the future.
-
You would think that someone in the insurance business would understand that injuries and the medical costs of treating them are drastically reduced when seat belts are worn vs not worn. Not wearing a seat belt cost the medical system (taxpayers) millions in unnecessary costs not to mention increased insurance premiums. Does that mean the research that went into proving that seat belts save lives is somehow flawed, because the scientists and engineers that conducted the research were paid by a government with a vested interest in proving it?
Exactly and it was the insurance industry as well as motorist advocate organizations such as CAA that had advocated for years for a seat belt law. As if it were the only law put in place to improve vehicle safety over the last 20 to 30 years. Many other changes have been mandated by law for example emissions control. Anyone remember leaded gas?
As far as diet. Significant legislated changes to food content may happen in the next 10 to 20 years. Other changes have been taking place over time since at least the 1960s as food additives and even natural substances (ie sarsaparilla) due to their link to cancer. Salt fat sugar content may be next because of both their link to heart and kidney disease and overeating. Many processed and snack foods foods are literally engineered to trigger appetite and overeating.
-
You are not discussing climate, you are discussing environment issues. If you want to say "If the earth warms, the chemicals we have released will become more potent and cause greater problem" great. And nobody is proposing we just go dump a bunch of crap everywhere.
actually i am talking about the climate (long term weather patterns) and how it correlates with environmental issues...here's a finding that can be used as an example...how you perceive it is completely up to you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140121130034.htm
-
I am still trying to figure out where all this money that is fueling the "global warming conspiracy" is coming from? The world governments? What has any government to gain from proving climate change is man made when it is not? Is the oil and gas lobby not one of the richest and most powerful in the world? If global warming scientists were so driven by money, would it not be easy for the oil and gas companies (those who stand to lose the most if people stop burning fossil fuels) to simply fund these scientists so they publish the findings they want? They certainly contribute enough to the major political parties to exert considerable influence on government policy and therefore government funded research. There must be another reason why the majority of the scientific community supports the theory that humans are contributing to the acceleration of the Greenhouse Affect by adding large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. What am I missing TNA?
How many electronics end up in landfills? How many CFL bulbs end up in landfills? How many people actually take the time to make sure they get to the electronics place? I don't think the power plants are having a huge effect on the climate or the environment anymore. I just find it funny that people are so worried about burning less coal which means using products that are less safe for the environment. So much so they have to be specially recycled when you and I both know there are way too many people that don't do that causing a net negative to the environment.
... as for how many CFL bulbs end up in land fills.
"EPA estimates that if all the CFLs sold in the U.S. in a year (almost 300 million), we’re dumped in landfills, they would add 0.12 metric tons to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans. By comparison, over 150 million metric tons of mercury emissions come from coal-fired electric power plants." http://topbulb.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/cfls-and-mercury-how-much-environmental-damage/
so 0.0000000008% will come from bulbs.
Something doesn't jive here... TNA, just what are you basing your claim that coal burning plants are not having a huge impact on the environment any more? or that we have more than enough oil to support us through the next century? Where are you getting this data from?
-
That does not mean that we humans cannot and have not had profound impact on global biodiversity as we have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species. It also doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to be mindful of the impact we are having and to evaluate and mitigate the negative consequences of that impact for the sake of our descendants.
Sandman, you are absolutely correct. We should be mindful of our impact, certainly. I guess my point was, if there was one, that while we should be mindful of our impact, there are many hastily made conclusions made every day. While we are somewhat free to say as we wish, we do need to be responsible for what we say.
Yes, we have many impacts on the world, quite a few unique to our species. Yes, we need to change how things are done. And, for you younger folk, things are changing, quite often, for the better. No waterways in North America have caught fire for decades. But we need to do more- sometimes with more technology, sometimes with less.
My point in a smaller nutshell: statistics can be made to say anything one wants, if they're tortured enough.
Works for every side.
-
You would think that someone in the insurance business would understand that injuries and the medical costs of treating them are drastically reduced when seat belts are worn vs not worn. Not wearing a seat belt cost the medical system (taxpayers) millions in unnecessary costs not to mention increased insurance premiums. Does that mean the research that went into proving that seat belts save lives is somehow flawed, because the scientists and engineers that conducted the research were paid by a government with a vested interest in proving it?
Wow. Where did I say that research was flawed. The insurance companies wanted it because they couldn't protect themselves from that risk. Trust me, most of them don't care whether you live or die or end up in the hospital for a long period of time. It is what they have to pay. If the insurance companies would have been allowed to underwrite you as a seatbelt wearer with a stipulation that if you get into an accident where you were not wearing your seatbelt they don't pay for any of your injuries or injuries you cause because of you not wearing your seat belt, they would do that. They aren't allowed to do that. If some idiot wants to not wear their seatbelt and pay extra premium for that right, they should have that right.
The difference in this research and the climate research is that there is hard data and very easy studies of the effects. Climate research can't seem to get the effects to match their models.
-
Exactly, I said that it would be easier to predict the climate (the prevailing weather conditions in general or over a long period of time) in the Lower Mainland on any given day in February next year (I predict that on 10 February 2015 the climate in the Lower Mainland will be cool and wet with most of the precipitation falling in the winter and less than 10% of which falling as snow at sea level) than it would be to predict the specific local weather on a given day next week.
The point I was making was that people (like you just did) are going from talking about global warming to saying that you cannot predict the weather that far into the future.
You can't discuss climate as of a specific date. If you give a date, you are talking about weather. For someone who claims to know the difference you don't seem to understand. The bolded cannot be stated with the second half of that sentence. One is specific, the other is climate.
-
Exactly and it was the insurance industry as well as motorist advocate organizations such as CAA that had advocated for years for a seat belt law. As if it were the only law put in place to improve vehicle safety over the last 20 to 30 years. Many other changes have been mandated by law for example emissions control. Anyone remember leaded gas?
As far as diet. Significant legislated changes to food content may happen in the next 10 to 20 years. Other changes have been taking place over time since at least the 1960s as food additives and even natural substances (ie sarsaparilla) due to their link to cancer. Salt fat sugar content may be next because of both their link to heart and kidney disease and overeating. Many processed and snack foods foods are literally engineered to trigger appetite and overeating.
And you are ok with that? If someone wants to eat something that has a higher chance of giving them cancer, then so be it. I guess maybe Canadians don't have the desire for personal freedom and personal responsibility anymore. I consider that a sad discovery. I deal with the consequences of my choices. I don't expect the gov't to cover for me or protect me from myself.
-
I am still trying to figure out where all this money that is fueling the "global warming conspiracy" is coming from? The world governments? What has any government to gain from proving climate change is man made when it is not? Is the oil and gas lobby not one of the richest and most powerful in the world? If global warming scientists were so driven by money, would it not be easy for the oil and gas companies (those who stand to lose the most if people stop burning fossil fuels) to simply fund these scientists so they publish the findings they want? They certainly contribute enough to the major political parties to exert considerable influence on government policy and therefore government funded research. There must be another reason why the majority of the scientific community supports the theory that humans are contributing to the acceleration of the Greenhouse Affect by adding large amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere. What am I missing TNA?
Something doesn't jive here... TNA, just what are you basing your claim that coal burning plants are not having a huge impact on the environment any more? or that we have more than enough oil to support us through the next century? Where are you getting this data from?
Gas companies have reported record profit in some recent years. How much were those profits? A couple billion dollars. How many big oil companies are there? Five? Ten? If they put all their extra profit, they wouldn't be able to still match what the US gov't puts in.
What has any gov't to gain? Seriously? Does the gov't want more control of your life or less? Given some of the other statements in here (restricting food content, etc.) it is obviously more. If there is this demon out there of man made climate change, will it give them more control of your life or less if they are going to combat it? There is talk in the States about how the gov't wants to be able to set a max on your power/heater. If you use too much power or are using too much gas to heat your home they can just turn your thermostat down. They want make you buy carbon offsets which amazingly many of the people pushing this are heavily invested just waiting for their payday.
As for having enough oil for a century, research recent finds in Australia and Israel. Australia supposedly found a reserve that has at least as much oil as Saudi Arabia has, more than Canada, Venezuela, Iraq, or Iran. It is thought to actually be much larger.
As for coal plants, the link below (from the EPA which I think we can agree won't deflate the numbers at all, says the average discharge from a coal plant
The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.
No mercury left. Can it be better, sure. Compared with what it used to be? Unbelievably better. If we could get the rest of the world to match that level the planet would be a better place.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html)
-
That does not mean that we humans cannot and have not had profound impact on global biodiversity as we have been responsible for the extinction of numerous species. It also doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to be mindful of the impact we are having and to evaluate and mitigate the negative consequences of that impact for the sake of our descendants.
Sandman, you are absolutely correct. We should be mindful of our impact, certainly. I guess my point was, if there was one, that while we should be mindful of our impact, there are many hastily made conclusions made every day. While we are somewhat free to say as we wish, we do need to be responsible for what we say.
Yes, we have many impacts on the world, quite a few unique to our species. Yes, we need to change how things are done. And, for you younger folk, things are changing, quite often, for the better. No waterways in North America have caught fire for decades. But we need to do more- sometimes with more technology, sometimes with less.
My point in a smaller nutshell: statistics can be made to say anything one wants, if they're tortured enough.
Works for every side.
I agree. I am not saying we shouldn't do anything, but we should be smart about it, think about it, and make sure what we are doing is the responsible and correct solution. Make sure we know the effects.
For instance, the push for electric cars. Huge push in the States. Big push when the infrastructure wasn't there to handle it. So, now we can't mine all the rare earth minerals needed for the batteries so we are having to buy the stuff mined in China which is being done so environmentally damaging it is dumb. The electricity to charge these still comes from coal plants so it is just putting a bigger strain on those.
There are technology changes coming that people are exploring that will take care of a lot of these issues if they pan out. New way of burning coal where there is no pollution created, more effective solar panels, stuff like that. But we have to push to do it all now and making things worse instead of better.
Although I believe a couple years ago one of Bellingham's creeks was on fire along with blowing most of the manhole covers in part of the city. That was a natural gas leak that was leaking into the storm drains and down into the creek that some fisherman found when lighting a cigarette. Compared to how it used to be, things are SO MUCH BETTER. We still have improvements we can make but all of this sky is falling we gotta act now is now healthy and doesn't lead to good results.
-
And you are ok with that? If someone wants to eat something that has a higher chance of giving them cancer, then so be it. I guess maybe Canadians don't have the desire for personal freedom and personal responsibility anymore. I consider that a sad discovery. I deal with the consequences of my choices. I don't expect the gov't to cover for me or protect me from myself.
there was (and is) a similar argument around cigarettes. However it's now known tobacco companies deliberately spiked cigarette tobacco to make it far more addictive than it normally was. They made enormous profits for decades while the externalities to smokers, their families, health insurance carries and society at large were far larger. You ok with that? Is that a fair expression of personal freedom and responsibility? Did you miss my comment that the snack food and beverage industry is following a similar strategy? External costs are similar to the tobacco case
I expect government to set rules in the market place. One rule is products should not be designed to hook people into unhealthy consumption where they choice is in essence chemically manipulated.
-
there was (and is) a similar argument around cigarettes. However it's now known tobacco companies deliberately spiked cigarette tobacco to make it far more addictive than it normally was. They made enormous profits for decades while the externalities to smokers, their families, health insurance carries and society at large were far larger. You ok with that? Is that a fair expression of personal freedom and responsibility? Did you miss my comment that the snack food and beverage industry is following a similar strategy? External costs are similar to the tobacco case
I expect government to set rules in the market place. One rule is products should not be designed to hook people into unhealthy consumption where they choice is in essence chemically manipulated.
Then make a rule that they can't spike our food or spike the cigarettes or make it so that they have to disclose all of this. Don't take the path of New York where instead they tell you that you can't order a pop bigger than such and such a size. Health insurance carriers should not be included after the 30s or so as they were able to underwrite for smoking and so their costs should have been covered.
Make me aware of the issues, make it very clear and easily obtained what effects these things have. If I still want to partake, then I am doing so at my own risk. I don't need or want a babysitter but that is what the gov't is trying to be.
-
Make me aware of the issues, make it very clear and easily obtained what effects these things have. If I still want to partake, then I am doing so at my own risk. I don't need or want a babysitter but that is what the gov't is trying to be.
More often governments respond to public will and pressure. They seldom take notice until the electorate gets upset. Governments seldom lead but mostly follow. What about minors? You expect them to be as able to independent exercise free will as you? Is it government just for you the folks who deceive themselves into believing they have perfect free will? Maybe we should do away with flashy packaging and replace it all with a skull and cross bones. What about little or no salt or sugar? Users can add as little or as much as they want?
-
You can't discuss climate as of a specific date. If you give a date, you are talking about weather. For someone who claims to know the difference you don't seem to understand. The bolded cannot be stated with the second half of that sentence. One is specific, the other is climate.
Oh, so you cannot discuss what the climate of Texas is today (a specific date)? Does that mean we cannot discuss how the climate in Texas today is warmer than it was on this day in 1970? Climate is a long term trend, that means that it doesn't matter that it is warmer or colder on any given day, what matters is the year after year trend and the speed at which it is changing. Consider the following: the number of nights below freezing in Texas cities (Houston, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Abeline, etc) has been steadily declining over the last fifty years. When you plot these days on a line graph, you get spikes to the extreme both ways in some years, but the year after year trend has been steadily down.
(http://texasclimatenews.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/DFW.jpg)
Therefore, while it is impossible to predict how many days below freezing there will be in 2014, you can see how easy it is to predict that the line will continue to trend downward if no dramatic change is made (ie: a nucleur winter from an asteroid impact). Therefore, it is safe to say that the climate in Texas will be warmer on 10 February 2015 even if the weather is colder that day..
-
What has any gov't to gain? Seriously? Does the gov't want more control of your life or less? Given some of the other statements in here (restricting food content, etc.) it is obviously more. If there is this demon out there of man made climate change, will it give them more control of your life or less if they are going to combat it? There is talk in the States about how the gov't wants to be able to set a max on your power/heater. If you use too much power or are using too much gas to heat your home they can just turn your thermostat down. They want make you buy carbon offsets which amazingly many of the people pushing this are heavily invested just waiting for their payday
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html)
I see...the "government" has invented the "demon" of man made climate change in order to exert more control over our lives.
-
As for coal plants, the link below (from the EPA which I think we can agree won't deflate the numbers at all, says the average discharge from a coal plant...
...No mercury left. Can it be better, sure. Compared with what it used to be? Unbelievably better. If we could get the rest of the world to match that level the planet would be a better place.
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html)
No mercury left? Hardly. They are referring to greenhouse emissions (mercury is not a greenhouse gas), so mercury is not mentioned. While the EPA has strengthen rules for new plants and that would see older plants shut down within 4 years if they are not be able to meet the new rules (91% capture). Of course, that is if the courts allow these new rules. Coal burning continues to dump tons of mercury into the environment this year in the US, not to mention in Canada and the rest of he world..
-
We live in a world run by insane people. So you think that this place we live in is going to get any better. There is no solution for the problems created by those whose only interest is power,money and complete control. They want a one world government, one world monetary system and one world religion. Oh by the way they want you to be good obedient slaves.
If you look to the past we have always had heating and cooling climate fluctuations. The worlds ecosystems where still reasonably healthy.
Are our ecosystems healthy now? Is the population of the world the same as in the past?
Fracking is destroying the underground aquafirs. GMO's are destroying our food supply. Fukushima is poisoning the oceans. Nuclear power plants are radiating us daily and there are plans for building more. BP compromised the Gulf of Mexico with their Deepwater Horizon well disaster.Poisoned the Gulf with Corexit and the Alantic Ocean. Chemicals sprayed from planes in a so called effort to cool our planet are exposing us to toxic metals.
Major drought in California which is going to effect our food supply. Our currency is being devalued against the American dollar so we can compete against other countries to sell out raw materials. Costing us more for food, oil, manufactured goods. We manufacture very little in Canada anymore. No more good paying jobs.
I could go on. It is a race to the bottom. Have a nice day.
-
is it coho season yet lol
-
is it coho season yet lol
Nope. The sky hasn't finished falling yet.
-
Oh, so you cannot discuss what the climate of Texas is today (a specific date)? Does that mean we cannot discuss how the climate in Texas today is warmer than it was on this day in 1970? Climate is a long term trend, that means that it doesn't matter that it is warmer or colder on any given day, what matters is the year after year trend and the speed at which it is changing. Consider the following: the number of nights below freezing in Texas cities (Houston, Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Abeline, etc) has been steadily declining over the last fifty years. When you plot these days on a line graph, you get spikes to the extreme both ways in some years, but the year after year trend has been steadily down.
(http://texasclimatenews.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/DFW.jpg)
Therefore, while it is impossible to predict how many days below freezing there will be in 2014, you can see how easy it is to predict that the line will continue to trend downward if no dramatic change is made (ie: a nucleur winter from an asteroid impact). Therefore, it is safe to say that the climate in Texas will be warmer on 10 February 2015 even if the weather is colder that day..
No, you can't discuss how the climate in Texas today is warmer than it was on this day in 1970
You can discuss how the climate in Texas this year is warmer than it was in during this time of year in 1970. If you are talking today versus this day in 1970, that is weather, not climate.
I agree that you can predict that the line will continue down. That is average temperature though which is why it is hard to say what it will be on any specific day. Half the days at -10 degrees and half at 10 degrees results in an average of 0 degrees. Half the days at -20 and half at 20 results in the same. Every day at 0 results in the same. You can split it up a lot more than 50/50. To say on a certain day that it will fall in the 50% of my example that is below freezing is predicting the weather, not the climate. Predicting that this winter will average 5 degrees colder than 1970's winter, that is predicting climate.
-
More often governments respond to public will and pressure. They seldom take notice until the electorate gets upset. Governments seldom lead but mostly follow. What about minors? You expect them to be as able to independent exercise free will as you? Is it government just for you the folks who deceive themselves into believing they have perfect free will? Maybe we should do away with flashy packaging and replace it all with a skull and cross bones. What about little or no salt or sugar? Users can add as little or as much as they want?
You haven't been following US politics in the last, oh decade, have you? A majority of the electorate didn't want a major change to our healthcare system. A majority of the electorate doesn't want it now. A majority of the electorate wanted/still wants the Keystone Pipeline. Special interests rule and both parties are horrible.
There are certain special interests who support this and push it. Is the gov't following the general electorate when they listen to them or are they leading the general electorate because the people in gov't think they know better than the general electorate (or see an opportunity to get more control or a bigger gov't to give themselves more power)?
Did the general electorate desire incandescent bulbs be outlawed? That isn't even something I heard anybody complaining about, not even hardly the most extreme environmentalists out there. They didn't follow on that one, they lead.
It seems these days, people that get elected to office (in the States at least but it seems world wide) first do everything they can to stay in office and second, do everything they can to make themselves more powerful. How many these days will vote for or against something because they believe it is the right thing to do even if it will get them voted out of office? I think people in office should do what they believe is right and if it is truly right they should then be able to explain themselves.
-
No, you can't discuss You can discuss how the climate in Texas this year is warmer than it was in during this time of year in 1970. If you are talking today versus this day in 1970, that is weather, not climate.
It is because climate does not change day to day, that you can indeed discuss what the climate is like on any given day. It does not matter if the temperature today is 15 degrees cooler than this day in 1970, the climate (long term average temperature) is still 5 degrees warmer.
I agree that you can predict that the line will continue down. That is average temperature though which is why it is hard to say what it will be on any specific day.
That is why it is predicting climate and not weather, however, the graph is showing the number of nights with below freezing temperatures, not average temperature.
-
It is because climate does not change day to day, that you can indeed discuss what the climate is like on any given day. It does not matter if the temperature today is 15 degrees cooler than this day in 1970, the climate (long term average temperature) is still 5 degrees warmer.
That is why it is predicting climate and not weather, however, the graph is showing the number of nights with below freezing temperatures, not average temperature.
You can discuss what the climate is on any given day as long as your discussion of the climate in any given week/month/season gives you the pretty much the same answer. You are missing the bigger point though.
Your graph doesn't even show climate, it shows days below freezing. It doesn't show whether on average the temperatures are colder or warmer. Stats can be used to show anything. What are the temps on the days where it isn't below freezing? If those dropped from an average of 60 degrees down to 40, the number of days below freezing could go down but the average will still go down.
http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html (http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html)
Using Vancouver's last 25 years, looks pretty darn flat. The average for the year got above 11 in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2010. Every 3 years for 9 years it would peak but then you went 5 years and then 7. Looks like the distance between averages above 11 degrees is spreading out so it must be getting colder. Of course you aren't going to agree with that but given the data I linked to, that is a reasonable conclusion.
It is amazing to me how many websites will give the 25 year average, the 50 year average, present their information in the way that they want you to see it but won't give the underlying data. I have gotten to a point where I don't trust anybody showing me their data points that aren't willing to show me the underlying data. Especially given the whole fiasco a couple years ago with them "massaging" the data to fix "errors" but unwilling to give the data without the fixes.
-
TNA Still being uneducated.
/thread
-
TNA Still being uneducated.
/thread
You're funny, except you're not, and wrong. I guess name calling is all you have left.
I gave my background in models. I have been putting in about 800 study hours a year on models and the like, oh, for the past 10-15 years. You want to call me uneducated, then prove that I am so uneducated compared to you. Give your background. Explain how you are such the expert. Or is it just that my opinions are contrary to what you have thought/believed/been told for so long that it just can't possibly make sense so I must be uneducated?
-
Nice to see some rain here on the Island. Maybe a bump of water will bring up some Steel. Flows are dreadfully low.
Skunked so far here on the Quinsam and Campbell this year. Been to the Gold several times since Christmas. Had one on, never saw it though.
Clearly 'Global Warming' not to mention 'Government Intervention'.
-
You're funny, except you're not, and wrong. I guess name calling is all you have left.
I gave my background in models. I have been putting in about 800 study hours a year on models and the like, oh, for the past 10-15 years. You want to call me uneducated, then prove that I am so uneducated compared to you. Give your background. Explain how you are such the expert. Or is it just that my opinions are contrary to what you have thought/believed/been told for so long that it just can't possibly make sense so I must be uneducated?
See pages 1-6. Re-read, realization, success.
My background is irrelevant as I'm not a meteorologist, evolutionary biologist or the like. The issue here is your arguments are similar to those of the flat earth society (as previously mentioned early on in this thread). I could also post studies, research papers and statistics but this again is beating a dead cat, it's all been posted here.
What I would suggest, for the good of this earth, is let your thoughts stay in your mind and let other pliable minds be molded by legitimate science. Just remember, Anti-Vaxxers think that they are doing the right thing too..,
-
You can discuss what the climate is on any given day as long as your discussion of the climate in any given week/month/season gives you the pretty much the same answer. You are missing the bigger point though.
Your graph doesn't even show climate, it shows days below freezing. It doesn't show whether on average the temperatures are colder or warmer. Stats can be used to show anything. What are the temps on the days where it isn't below freezing? If those dropped from an average of 60 degrees down to 40, the number of days below freezing could go down but the average will still go down.
http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html (http://vancouver.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html)
Using Vancouver's last 25 years, looks pretty darn flat. The average for the year got above 11 in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2003, 2010. Every 3 years for 9 years it would peak but then you went 5 years and then 7. Looks like the distance between averages above 11 degrees is spreading out so it must be getting colder. Of course you aren't going to agree with that but given the data I linked to, that is a reasonable conclusion.
It is amazing to me how many websites will give the 25 year average, the 50 year average, present their information in the way that they want you to see it but won't give the underlying data. I have gotten to a point where I don't trust anybody showing me their data points that aren't willing to show me the underlying data. Especially given the whole fiasco a couple years ago with them "massaging" the data to fix "errors" but unwilling to give the data without the fixes.
Actually, since the number of nights with temperatures below freezing is a long term pattern in weather conditions, and since climate is the prevailing weather conditions in general or over long periods of time, not just averages, it indeed shows climate. A change from a moderate to extreme climate (greater variability between highest and lowest temperature), or visa versa, is a change in climate, even though the average may not change much at all. Furthermore, while Vancouver's average temperatures may appear relatively flat, this may be as much a product of the moderating effect the Pacific Ocean has on our climate. We may also be an area that is going to experience a cooler drier climate in the new regime. What is interesting is that in Canadian cities further inland (continental vs maritime climate) we see that the average temperature in the last five years has risen at least a degree compare to the first five years of that 25 year period:
http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html (http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html)
This is even more pronounced in cities further north:
http://iqaluit.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html (http://iqaluit.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html)
Given that global warming (the rise in the global average temperature of the earth's atmosphere) in the last 100 years is a rise of less than a degree, these changes appear significant.
-
You haven't been following US politics in the last, oh decade, have you? A majority of the electorate didn't want a major change to our healthcare system. A majority of the electorate doesn't want it now.
actually I have followed US Politics for about 5 decades. you are wrong on this one as well. When someone goes narrow you argue broad. When they argue narrow you switch back to broad. It's very thin unsophisticated sophistry. The US Electorate is it's own worst enemy as the average person doesn't vote. Looking at narrow bands of broad scale polling is deceptive as it swings wildly based on media and political spin. Health care is just one issue and your illustrates the sort of spin and distortion that typifies US politics. The Obama health care initiative was such politically divisive (what isn't down there - if he announced he favored motherhood the Republic Christian Tea party vote would oppose him. I mean it's the Western World's biggest political joke don't you know? ROTFLMAO) Given that and how badly it was pulled off little wonder it's opposed at the moment.
-
actually I have followed US Politics for about 5 decades. you are wrong on this one as well. When someone goes narrow you argue broad. When they argue narrow you switch back to broad. It's very thin unsophisticated sophistry. The US Electorate is it's own worst enemy as the average person doesn't vote. Looking at narrow bands of broad scale polling is deceptive as it swings wildly based on media and political spin. Health care is just one issue and your illustrates the sort of spin and distortion that typifies US politics. The Obama health care initiative was such politically divisive (what isn't down there - if he announced he favored motherhood the Republic Christian Tea party vote would oppose him. I mean it's the Western World's biggest political joke don't you know? ROTFLMAO) Given that and how badly it was pulled off little wonder it's opposed at the moment.
It was a mess when it was put in, not read by many who passed it, been a complete disaster of an implementation, and the Congress had to break hundreds of years of protocol to pass it. This despite a polls showing by the time they passed it that only a majority of people favored it. That is not following the will of the people.
-
See pages 1-6. Re-read, realization, success.
My background is irrelevant as I'm not a meteorologist, evolutionary biologist or the like. The issue here is your arguments are similar to those of the flat earth society (as previously mentioned early on in this thread). I could also post studies, research papers and statistics but this again is beating a dead cat, it's all been posted here.
What I would suggest, for the good of this earth, is let your thoughts stay in your mind and let other pliable minds be molded by legitimate science. Just remember, Anti-Vaxxers think that they are doing the right thing too..,
Alright, so you are in the section of "just believe what people you believe are smarter than you say because they are smarter, or at least have told you they are smarter." At least do yourself a favor and realize that there is an entire section of the scientific community that does agree with me and if you search you can find their research. Some of them are sponsored by oil companies, stay away from them because they aren't unbiased either. There are plenty of others though. If you want to read both sides and still believe what you believe, fine. I have no issue with that. How can you critically think about any of this if you don't hear both sides from people you could believe as you obviously won't believe me? Or is it that you don't want to critically think about it?
There is a nationally syndicated radio host that put together a movie. His name is Phil Valentine and the movie is "An Inconsistent Truth". I haven't watched it but I hear it is very good and brings together many of these scientists and shows all of the issues. You can find it on Amazon. It has been a top seller on there for many weeks. You want to hear it from scientists that aren't taking oil money? Watch that.
-
Actually, since the number of nights with temperatures below freezing is a long term pattern in weather conditions, and since climate is the prevailing weather conditions in general or over long periods of time, not just averages, it indeed shows climate. A change from a moderate to extreme climate (greater variability between highest and lowest temperature), or visa versa, is a change in climate, even though the average may not change much at all. Furthermore, while Vancouver's average temperatures may appear relatively flat, this may be as much a product of the moderating effect the Pacific Ocean has on our climate. We may also be an area that is going to experience a cooler drier climate in the new regime. What is interesting is that in Canadian cities further inland (continental vs maritime climate) we see that the average temperature in the last five years has risen at least a degree compare to the first five years of that 25 year period:
http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html (http://ottawa.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html)
This is even more pronounced in cities further north:
http://iqaluit.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html (http://iqaluit.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-25years.html)
Given that global warming (the rise in the global average temperature of the earth's atmosphere) in the last 100 years is a rise of less than a degree, these changes appear significant.
Comparing a 5 year average over 25 years and then saying the 100 year average is less than a degree doesn't mean as much since we don't have the data from before that. If you want to find a place to get that I will review it.
I have never said climate isn't changing. Climate has changed since the beginning. I'm just saying the effect man has on it is over blown. Or maybe it isn't but we don't really know because we can't predict climate into the future because our models are so poor.
Read this
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html)
Just came out last week. Increased Pacific winds have buried the global warming deeper in the oceans causing us to cool. They just considered this possibility so you know it isn't built into the models. If this isn't built into the models, what else isn't? It even says it in the story, "Stronger Pacific Ocean winds may help explain the slowdown in the rate of global warming since the turn of the century, scientists said." MAY. They don't know. They don't know why their models aren't predicting things closer. So, I ask again, if they don't understand why the models are giving bad results for now, why would we believe their prediction 50 or 100 years out? They are trying to back test their models and it is failing.
For those not familiar with back testing, it is going back to some time in the past (10 years say) and putting in some of what actually happened and letting the assumptions flow through and getting the results. This should validate that the model can be trusted for the next 10 years without any major shocks to the system. If you can't validate over 10 years back testing like this, no results of the model should be trusted.
-
this site has made me read more than expected and fish less. ;D
-
this site has made me read more than expected and fish less. ;D
Well, please, fish more although I hear there are few fish. Post some pics in the fish porn thread. Not many pictures these days.
-
hahaha I don't think pictures of my cold toes would suit the fish porn thread.
-
hahaha I don't think pictures of my cold toes would suit the fish porn thread.
:( Some of us live vicariously through the pictures because we don't get to fish enough. The rest of you aren't catching enough to satisfy our needs. Get to it and up your game.
-
I have never said climate isn't changing. Climate has changed since the beginning. I'm just saying the effect man has on it is over blown. Or maybe it isn't but we don't really know because we can't predict climate into the future because our models are so poor.
You insist we cannot know what our impact is, but at the same time you insist our impact is less than scientists claim. Humans have long argued that we cannot alter the oceans or the atmosphere because they are so large and we are so small, yet science (and simple observation) has shown this is erroneous. We now understand that dumping sewage and untreated industrial waste into the ocean may not be such a harmless act. It does not take a scientist to realize that if greenhouse gases like CO2 are responsible for our atmosphere retaining heat (natural Greenhouse Effect), and if we are producing more CO2 today through the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal and petroleum) than at any time in the Earth's past, while at the same time we are removing forest cover (responsible for converting a substantial amount of the atmospheric CO2 to O2) at an unprecedented rate, that we can indeed have a significant impact on the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere. While one can be skeptical of the accuracy of computer models to predict future climates accurately, it is quite another to deny humans can have an profound impact on climate given what we do know about the Earth's natural cycles (carbon cycle, Water Cycle, etc) and about our present actions and contributions to them.
(http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/mlo_color_plot_small.jpg)
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years (https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years)
(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/201201-201212-1.png)
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1345 (http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1345)
-
Typically, people here seem to prefer attacking the person rather than the subject at hand. If you can't support your own premise with facts then attack the other guy on a personal basis rather than dispute his theories.
I think we can all agree that we've done damage to this planet and the damage needs to stop before it's too late. Whether or not the damage has caused global temperature changes means absolutely nothing. The ONLY thing that counts now is how can we prevent further damage to the planet.
-
Ian I could not agree more.Well said.This thread has begun to look a lot like the age old"how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"argument.
-
You insist we cannot know what our impact is, but at the same time you insist our impact is less than scientists claim. Humans have long argued that we cannot alter the oceans or the atmosphere because they are so large and we are so small, yet science (and simple observation) has shown this is erroneous. We now understand that dumping sewage and untreated industrial waste into the ocean may not be such a harmless act. It does not take a scientist to realize that if greenhouse gases like CO2 are responsible for our atmosphere retaining heat (natural Greenhouse Effect), and if we are producing more CO2 today through the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal and petroleum) than at any time in the Earth's past, while at the same time we are removing forest cover (responsible for converting a substantial amount of the atmospheric CO2 to O2) at an unprecedented rate, that we can indeed have a significant impact on the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere. While one can be skeptical of the accuracy of computer models to predict future climates accurately, it is quite another to deny humans can have an profound impact on climate given what we do know about the Earth's natural cycles (carbon cycle, Water Cycle, etc) and about our present actions and contributions to them.
(http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/mlo_color_plot_small.jpg)
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years (https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years)
(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2013/201201-201212-1.png)
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1345 (http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1345)
Did you read my previous linked article? It states that the increased winds have decreased global temperatures by up to .2 degrees since 2001. That isn't shown on your chart. Where the data comes from is important because a lot of the sensors have been put in locations that show increases because of what is around them (ie in the middle of a parking lot instead of in the country) because they didn't move with urban growth.
Also, your charts don't add up. If CO2 is such the bad thing, the chart shows the warming starting in around 1910. CO2 didn't start increasing until 1960. So the temperature was increasing before the CO2 went up. Looks like we were cooling before that.
Scientists have been trying to find out why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas emissions have surged to a record.
If you look at graphs showing stuff going back much further than 100 years, we have been a little hotter but it doesn't indicate a significant change in patterns.
-
Typically, people here seem to prefer attacking the person rather than the subject at hand. If you can't support your own premise with facts then attack the other guy on a personal basis rather than dispute his theories.
I think we can all agree that we've done damage to this planet and the damage needs to stop before it's too late. Whether or not the damage has caused global temperature changes means absolutely nothing. The ONLY thing that counts now is how can we prevent further damage to the planet.
I agree there has been damage done to this planet. As Sandman just mentioned, dumping raw sewage into our oceans or Japan's disaster or all the crap that is getting into our water systems like pharmaceuticals and all that. Stop that crap. Focus our energy on that. Focus our energy on making power sources that don't dump chemicals like mercury and heavy metals into our system. Focus on the chemicals that create smog, CO, NO, SO2. Focus energy on fixing the models so we know what the biggest culprit is.
CO2 is not the biggest culprit. Current CO2 levels are just a little higher than the peak in previous years.(http://www.planetforlife.com//images/icecore.gif) Compare that to Sandman's picture. We are right about the 390 level. Industry wasn't around for those previous jumps and yet they occurred naturally. It isn't like jumps in CO2 level are new. Current CO2 levels have been climbing since what, 20,000 years ago? Cars today make CO2 because back in the 70s they proved it was bad for them to make CO. Problem is, producing CO2 isn't good enough for the most extreme. If all the cars put out was H2O, it wouldn't be enough because then we would be altering the humidity in the air which will affect plant life and animals. A lot of the most vocal people will only be happy when you don't have electricity in your house, you don't burn anything, you don't drive anywhere and you aren't breathing.
Instead of running around like the sky is falling, fix what we know is broken for sure without relying on models that obviously aren't giving accurate results. Man affects the environment obviously. Make it so we aren't giving our kids cancer or destroying entire swaths of land by dumping chemicals on them.
-
Did you read my previous linked article? It states that the increased winds have decreased global temperatures by up to .2 degrees since 2001. That isn't shown on your chart. Where the data comes from is important because a lot of the sensors have been put in locations that show increases because of what is around them (ie in the middle of a parking lot instead of in the country) because they didn't move with urban growth.
No, you are correct, the chart by the NOAA shows a more modest decrease, but you have already stated you believe they are fudging the data to forward a government agenda of exerting more control over your life, so you can be skeptical of their research and throw your support behind the 10 scientists conducting the study that Alex reports on because they have no such hidden agenda.
Also, your charts don't add up. If CO2 is such the bad thing, the chart shows the warming starting in around 1910. CO2 didn't start increasing until 1960. So the temperature was increasing before the CO2 went up. Looks like we were cooling before that.
No, CO2 accelerated after 1960, it was increasing before that (according to your own chart) and the Keeling curve starts in 1956 when the CO2 levels were already over 315ppm (higher than the previous peak over 300k YBP) and it began accelerating in the late 1800s when the industrial revolution saw human caused increases in CO2 levels.
If you look at graphs showing stuff going back much further than 100 years, we have been a little hotter but it doesn't indicate a significant change in patterns.
But we have never had CO2 levels this high before (25% more than any other time in the last half a million years) and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down (quite the opposite if you have your way and we do nothing).
Current CO2 levels are just a little higher than the peak in previous years. Compare that to Sandman's picture. We are right about the 390 level. Industry wasn't around for those previous jumps and yet they occurred naturally. It isn't like jumps in CO2 level are new. Current CO2 levels have been climbing since what, 20,000 years ago?
I repeat: However, we have never had CO2 levels this high before (25% higher than at any other time in the last half a million years is hardy "a little higher").
If all the cars put out was H2O, it wouldn't be enough because then we would be altering the humidity in the air which will affect plant life and animals. A lot of the most vocal people will only be happy when you don't have electricity in your house, you don't burn anything, you don't drive anywhere and you aren't breathing.
This is a logical fallacy (Red Herring) and and an appeal to emotion (fear) has no place in a constructive debate (these are tactics of politicians) and the last phrase is just nonsense. The most vocal people would be happy if the electricity we used in your house was created in a clean sustainable way (ie: solar), and that if you did burn anything, it was burned as cleanly as possible . You said it yourself, that the only reason the engines today have emission controls is because people vocally demanded it and the government (those bastards) made it a requirement.
Instead of running around like the sky is falling, fix what we know is broken for sure without relying on models that obviously aren't giving accurate results. Man affects the environment obviously. Make it so we aren't giving our kids cancer or destroying entire swaths of land by dumping chemicals on them.
Does inundating the land with sea water constitute "dumping chemicals"? If the polar ice caps do melt as a result of man made global warming (and I realize that is a big IF for you), then the rising sea levels would do just that, forcing the relocation of hundreds of millions of people. I suspect that these people would rather we not wait until we are absolutely sure the sea is rising (it has indeed risen 19 centimeters this century or about 1.7mm a year and this rate has doubled to 3.2mm/yr since 1993) before we try to "fix" the problem (at which point it will be too late to stop the flooding of our grand-children's land by seawater). While there are other equally important man made impacts that we need to address, the presence of other harms, does not mitigate the harm of man made contributions to global warming.
-
I haven't read any of this Alex's research but I would be just as skeptical of her research as anybody elses. You should review everything told you and never believe anything without validating it. That is just good practical sense.
Did you not read all the stories coming out of that British department responsible for almost all of the global temperature readings? Year, two years ago? How they had taken data, "cleansed" the data before reporting it, and destroyed the original records? How they had changed some things because it didn't show the warming they believed to be there? Their own emails were released as part of the wikileak scandal.
Me and my uneducated self thought the whole constructive part of this debated ended days ago.
The South Pole cap is increasing. The North pole's ice is on water. Fill your cup with ice cubes then fill it with water to the very top. When the ice cubes melt, is the water going to run all out of the glass onto the table?
I think we have done about as much damage as we can to everyone else's senses. You and I will just have to agree to disagree. I would just encourage you to seek out and read research that disagrees with what you think, think about it critically, and actually research anything before believing it. Also, realize data can be spun any sort of way possible.
Have a Happy Valentine's day and make sure you get that woman of yours a good card, some flowers, and a nice gift. Well, you better send an e-card though because actual cards leave too much of a carbon footprint. And destroying flowers is just going to make the CO2 problem worse. Forget the gift too. Plastic flowers, wait, no. You might as well just be mad at yourself and kick yourself down to the couch for the next couple nights.
-
Did you not read all the stories coming out of that British department responsible for almost all of the global temperature readings? Year, two years ago? How they had taken data, "cleansed" the data before reporting it, and destroyed the original records? How they had changed some things because it didn't show the warming they believed to be there? Their own emails were released as part of the wikileak scandal.
Yes, and after eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged. It was nothing more than a well orchestrated smear campaign ahead of the Copenhagen Conference.
The South Pole cap is increasing. The North pole's ice is on water. Fill your cup with ice cubes then fill it with water to the very top. When the ice cubes melt, is the water going to run all out of the glass onto the table?
The modest increase in Southern Sea Ice (250 000miles2) paled in comparison to the loss of the Northern Sea Ice (1.3 million miles2).
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/699382main_arctic-antarctic-2012.jpg)
As you so aptly point out there is a big difference between sea ice and land ice. The sea ice in Antarctic, while growing in area last year, almost completely melts every year, while much of the northern sea ice usually stays all year. The melting of the northern sea ice has larger implications because as it melts, more sunlight (normally reflected by the ice) is absorbed by the Arctic Ocean and increases global temperatures.
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SeaIce.jpg)
Furthermore, not all the ice in the north is sea ice (Greenland):
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2311352233/?page=3 (http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2311352233/?page=3)
Moreover, while the maximum extent of the Antarctic sea ice has increased, the all important land ice (the ice cubes piled on top of those in your full glass analogy) is actually experiencing a net decrease (although not as quickly as Greenland) of about 70 Giga-tonnes per year or 1350 Gt since 1992 (Sheppard 2012) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183).
-
I don't want to open this debate back up but saw an article and quotes from one of the founders of Greenpeace that seemed to fit the debate and since it was on a website I doubt Sandman reads, I thought I would post it. Note these quotes were made to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/)
A co-founder of Greenpeace told lawmakers there is no evidence man is contributing to climate change, and said he left the group when it became more interested in politics than the environment.
Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like the one he helped establish use faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” he said.
Even if the planet is warming up, Moore claimed it would not be calamitous for men, which he described as a “subtropical species.”
Skeptics of manmade climate change say there is no evidence the Earth is warming. A UN report on the scientific data behind global warming released in September indicated that global surface temperatures have not increased for the past 15 years, but scientists who believe climate change due to man is occurring say it has merely paused because of several factors and will soon resume.
The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink” to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.
Moore said he left Greenpeace in the 1980s because he believed it became more interested in politics than science.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
He could be completely wrong but from someone that used to be in the know to say it has become more about politics than the science means I am not the only one that believes that. Ignore it as you wish.
-
I don't want to open this debate back up but saw an article and quotes from one of the founders of Greenpeace that seemed to fit the debate and since it was on a website I doubt Sandman reads, I thought I would post it. Note these quotes were made to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming/)
He could be completely wrong but from someone that used to be in the know to say it has become more about politics than the science means I am not the only one that believes that. Ignore it as you wish.
Ok, so this one guy, someone with an axe to grind with one particular environmental group, says there is no evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming in the last 100 years. He, himself, offers no scientific evidence to back up his claim, he just basically says that all the scientific evidence cited in that 2200 page Technical Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mentioned in the same article simply doesn't exist ...and you want us to include him on your side of the debate? Sure.
Oh, and here is George Monbiot's take on Moore (warning, if you like Moore, you must hate Monbiot):
So what do you do if your brand is turning toxic? You hire the Canadian public relations consultant Patrick Moore. Moore runs a company based in Vancouver called Greenspirit Strategies, which has developed “sustainability messaging” for logging, mining, lead-smelting, nuclear, biotech, fish-farming and plastics companies(17,18). He is a clever rhetoritician, skilled at turning an argument round. He is seen by some environmentalists as the most brazen of the spin doctors they face.
He has described clearcut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”(19). He has suggested that sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild fish, often with devastating effects) are “good for wild salmon”: as the fish can eat the larvae(20). He has justified gold-mining operations which have caused devastating spills of sodium cyanide by arguing that “cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species”(21). But his greatest asset to the companies he represents is this: Patrick Moore was one of the founders and leaders of Greenpeace.
From that 2200 page IPCC Technical Report:
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have
increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide
concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel
emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed
about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see
Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system. {2–14}
You can be skeptical if you like. The scientific evidence is there. Like a child closing his eyes and imagining that everything disappears, ignoring the evidence doesn't really make it go away. Your argument that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a conspiracy created by the world's governments to simply exert more control over your life just doesn't hold water (at least not as much as the melting global Ice Caps hold). I would like nothing more than for all the scientists to be proven wrong and for the Earth to somehow miraculously absorb all of our harmful inputs and balance itself so that our grandchildren do not have to live with the consequences of our selfish indifference, so that we can go on blithely burning fossil fuels. You may not like Al Gore, you may even believe he is a crack pot, but you have to give him credit for the choosing a title for his documentary that speaks volumes. Accepting that human activity is a major contributing factor in Global Warming is inconvenient. It would be much easier to be skeptical and ignore the evidence. I just do not think that is a very reasonable and responsible way to approach the current state of the global climate trends.
-
Yeah, I will take my cues on how to live life from a guy that preaches one thing and then does the completely opposite. The guy who talks about how we should live small with houses only as big as we need but forget his, what, 6 mansions? That we should commute as little as possible while he flies around in his own private jet. That we should reduce our carbon footprint while he produces as much carbon as a small town. Oh, and we should all purchase carbon offsets, something he is very heavily invested in and stands to make a fortune if that becomes required. Al Gore is a mooch, a liar, and scam artist. This is the guy you listen to? No wonder.
Your comment about sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild salmon) is deceiving. You make it seem like there was no sea lice prior to farmed salmon. Sea lice spread from salmon to salmon. Salmon farms probably hurt the situation.
The globe is going to warm. I don't think there is anything we can do to stop it. We are coming out of the little ice age, it is supposed to warm. Like I have said before, create a model that accurately predicts anything 5, 10 years out and I will listen. Until then, they have no credibility. When are you going to stop believing their models when they can't produce one that works? Can't even really produce one that is close. Scientific evidence would require them being able to test a hypothesis, coming to a conclusion, then testing that conclusion and getting accurate results. If they can't produce accurate results then it is not scientific evidence. I realize you want them to be right and want to believe what they say and what you do is going to help when really you would be better off spending your time walking the river picking up trash. If believing this makes you feel good, then go for it. Just don't force me to change what I do because it fits into your belief of how things work. Change what you do, fine. Don't force it on others.
And once again, I'm done. Reply as I know you will.
-
Of course I am going to reply to your misdirection.
Yeah, I will take my cues on how to live life from a guy that preaches one thing and then does the completely opposite. The guy who talks about how we should live small with houses only as big as we need but forget his, what, 6 mansions? That we should commute as little as possible while he flies around in his own private jet. That we should reduce our carbon footprint while he produces as much carbon as a small town. Oh, and we should all purchase carbon offsets, something he is very heavily invested in and stands to make a fortune if that becomes required. Al Gore is a mooch, a liar, and scam artist. This is the guy you listen to? No wonder.
I never said that, I told you you can think him a crackpot if you want. I said to give him credit for a good title for his documentary. By the way, the size of his own carbon footprint does not disprove his message, it just makes him a hypocrite.
Your comment about sea lice (which spread from farmed salmon to wild salmon) is deceiving. You make it seem like there was no sea lice prior to farmed salmon. Sea lice spread from salmon to salmon. Salmon farms probably hurt the situation.
It was not my comment, it was Moore's comment that the sea lice from fish farms, which Moore owned at one point in his career (if he doesn't still own one), is good for wild salmon because they can eat the larva. I never commented anything on the topic.
The globe is going to warm. I don't think there is anything we can do to stop it. We are coming out of the little ice age, it is supposed to warm. Like I have said before, create a model that accurately predicts anything 5, 10 years out and I will listen. Until then, they have no credibility.
No credibility at all? Really?
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 9.1 | Are Climate Models Getting Better, and How Would We Know?
Climate models are extremely sophisticated computer programs that encapsulate our understanding of the climate system and simulate, with as much fidelity as currently feasible, the complex interactions between the atmosphere, ocean, land surface, snow and ice, the global ecosystem and a variety of chemical and biological processes. The complexity of climate models—the representation of physical processes like clouds, land surface interactions and the representation of the global carbon and sulphur cycles in many models—has increased substantially since
the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990, so in that sense, current Earth System Models are vastly ‘better’ than the models of that era. This development has continued since the Fourth Assessment, while other factors have also contributed to model improvement. More powerful supercomputers allow current models to resolve finer spatial detail. Today’s models also reflect improved understanding of how climate processes work—understanding that has come from ongoing research and analysis, along with new and improved observations.
Climate models of today are, in principle, better than their predecessors. However, every bit of added complexity, while intended to improve some aspect of simulated climate, also introduces new sources of possible error (e.g., via uncertain parameters) and new interactions between model components that may, if only temporarily, degrade a model’s simulation of other aspects of the climate system. Furthermore, despite the progress that has been made, scientific uncertainty regarding the details of many processes remains.
An important consideration is that model performance can be evaluated only relative to past observations, taking into account natural internal variability. To have confidence in the future projections of such models, historical climate—and its variability and change—must be well simulated. The scope of model evaluation, in terms of the kind and quantity of observations available, the availability of better coordinated model experiments, and the expanded use of various performance metrics, has provided much more quantitative information about model performance. But this alone may not be sufficient. Whereas weather and seasonal climate predictions can be regularly verified, climate projections spanning a century or more cannot. This is particularly the case as anthropogenic forcing is driving the climate system toward conditions not previously observed in the instrumental record, and it will always be a limitation. Quantifying model performance is a topic that has featured in all previous IPCC Working Group I Reports. Reading back over these earlier assessments provides a general sense of the improvements that have been made. Past reports have typically provided a rather broad survey of model performance, showing differences between model-calculated versions of various climate quantities and corresponding observational estimates. Inevitably, some models perform better than others for certain climate variables, but no individual model clearly emerges as ‘the best’ overall. Recently, there has been progress in computing various performance metrics, which synthesize model performance relative to a range of different observations according to a simple numerical score. Of course, the definition of such a score, how it is computed, the observations used (which have their own uncertainties), and the manner in which various scores are combined are all important, and will affect the end result.
Nevertheless, if the metric is computed consistently, one can compare different generations of models. Results of such comparisons generally show that, although each generation exhibits a range in performance, the average model performance index has improved steadily between each generation. An example of changes in model performance over time is shown in FAQ 9.1, Figure 1, and illustrates the ongoing, albeit modest, improvement. It is interesting to note that both the poorest and best performing models demonstrate improvement, and that this
improvement comes in parallel with increasing model complexity and an elimination of artificial adjustments to atmosphere and ocean coupling (so-called ‘flux adjustment’). Some of the reasons for this improvement include increased understanding of various climate processes and better representation of these processes in climate models. More comprehensive Earth observations are also driving improvements.
So, yes, climate models are getting better, and we can demonstrate this with quantitative performance metrics based on historical observations. Although future climate projections cannot be directly evaluated, climate models are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles and are able to reproduce many important aspects of past response to external forcing. In this way, they provide a scientifically sound preview of the climate response to different scenarios of anthropogenic forcing.
So the new models definitely are not perfect, but they are getting better. To suggest that if the model is not perfect, it lacks all credibility is just wrong. You can have confidence in the future predictions of a model, if it is able to reproduce past patterns with some degree of accuracy, and the new models have done this better than you let on.
Confidence in climate model projections is based on physical understanding of the climate system and its representation in climate
models, and on a demonstration of how well models represent a wide range of processes and climate characteristics on various spatial and
temporal scales (Knutti et al., 2010b). A climate model’s credibility is increased if the model is able to simulate past variations in climate,
such as trends over the 20th century and palaeoclimatic changes. Projections from previous IPCC assessments can also be directly compared
to observations (see Figures 1.4 and 1.5), with the caveat that these projections were not intended to be predictions over the short time
scales for which observations are available to date. Unlike shorter lead forecasts, longer-term climate change projections push models into
conditions outside the range observed in the historical period used for evaluation.
-
When are you going to stop believing their models when they can't produce one that works? Can't even really produce one that is close.
Did you read that technical report? The models are a lot closer than you are letting on. Are they perfect? No? They are very complex and every time you add a new variable to make it more accurate, you increase the possibility of an error.
Scientific evidence would require them being able to test a hypothesis, coming to a conclusion, then testing that conclusion and getting accurate results. If they can't produce accurate results then it is not scientific evidence.
Again, there is scientific evidence (reproduced results supporting the hypothesis) that the climate is warming at an unprecedented rate (the last 15 years aside, the trend in the last 100 years is still on the upward swing), and there is scientific evidence that there is 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere today than at any time in the last 800 000 years, and there is scientific evidence that the CO2 levels have increase by 40% in the last 40 years. Now can you think of any other natural factor that has under gone as dramatic a change as these over the last 100 years? Hmm? Human population is increasing as dramatically (exponentially) in the last 100 years. No, you are right, it is just a coincidence. Humans can't possibly have anything to do with these changes. While correlation does not equal causation, when you also factor in what we know about the relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and radiative forcing, and the relationships between human activity and the Carbon Cycle, the conclusion is pretty clear.
It is unequivocal that anthropogenic increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) have substantially enhanced
the greenhouse effect, and the resulting forcing continues to increase. Aerosols partially offset the forcing of the WMGHGs and
dominate the uncertainty associated with the total anthropogenic driving of climate change.
I realize you want them to be right and want to believe what they say and what you do is going to help when really you would be better off spending your time walking the river picking up trash.
Unlike you, it seems, I can do both.
If believing this makes you feel good, then go for it. Just don't force me to change what I do because it fits into your belief of how things work. Change what you do, fine. Don't force it on others.
I am not forcing anything on anyone. I am simply making a point with the hope that you might see that perhaps you too should support the reduction of the burning of fossil fuels, the investment into more sustainable energy sources, and the promotion of less harmful human practices.
-
The globe is going to warm. I don't think there is anything we can do to stop it. We are coming out of the little ice age, it is supposed to warm. Like I have said before, create a model that accurately predicts anything 5, 10 years out and I will listen.
The Earth is not coming out of a 'Little ice Age'. Anyone can google the phrase to see what it refers to. It was not global and it ended about 150 years ago.
There many models & theories that predict behaviours accurately over much longer periods than 5 to 10 years. All theories of the Universe & Cosmos clearly do this with astonishing mathematical accuracy. Climate models are problematic in that the system itself is chaotic. However the same is true of the Economy - a chaotic system yet it's behaviour can be accurately predicted over the long term in that markets tend to evolve in predictable ways.
-
There is enough scientific data to suggest global warming. The polar ice caps is a fraction of what it was decades ago.
I agree that about the Artic and the Polar caps-BUT-look at the weather in many other parts of the world such as our east coast, down south of us just for example. Closeing the Coquihalla highway for so long. I know here in the lower mainland this has been the worst winter for many years. The wind has not let up here in Vedder Crossing now for weeks.
-
The Earth is not coming out of a 'Little ice Age'. Anyone can google the phrase to see what it refers to. It was not global and it ended about 150 years ago.
There many models & theories that predict behaviours accurately over much longer periods than 5 to 10 years. All theories of the Universe & Cosmos clearly do this with astonishing mathematical accuracy. Climate models are problematic in that the system itself is chaotic. However the same is true of the Economy - a chaotic system yet it's behaviour can be accurately predicted over the long term in that markets tend to evolve in predictable ways.
It doesn't have to be global to lower the global average temperature.
You are right that accurate models like the Universe and Cosmos are easy to predict with extreme accuracy because they are ordered. Like you said, the system for climate is chaotic, or at least to our understanding currently it is. Maybe in the future we will understand all the inputs enough to more accurately predict a lot of it. Who knows. I disagree that long term markets are predictable though. They are predictable if there are no unpredicted shocks to the system. Go back 20 years ago and look at any financial prediction you can find. I bet you would have a very hard time finding one that predicted the collapse of 2008. Heck, find one in 2006 or 2007 and you still wouldn't see it. If they were there, they were considered darn near impossible. Only people who were trying to make a buck were predicting it or saying they predicted it (which many others had been doing for decades). Most of those have made further predictions that have been far off from the truth. Hindsight is 20/20 and looking back everyone can see the indicators of why it happened and that it was coming. These shocks to the system lower everything and then usually things return back to the growth pattern previously but long term predictions would be way too favorable.
Again, this is the type of predictive modeling that I do for a living. We try and figure out what possible extreme shocks might occur and how things will react but there is just no knowing. We do the best we can and if we get fairly accurate over the first couple years we pat ourselves on the back. Some big shocks might come that we listed as a possibility but to actually say they were thought to be anything more than one of a couple thousand possible paths would be completely inaccurate.
-
Add to those economic predictions new technologies that come along that swing things upward. There was no way 50-60 years ago that any model would have predicted the benefit computers and the internet and all of that has given companies. Heck Al Gore hadn't even invented the internet yet. In the next 50 years, will there be another huge technological advancement to push us forward or will we be with the same technology and only going forward at the typical path? Without being able to answer that, you cannot say the long term prediction is very accurate.
-
There was no way 50-60 years ago that any model would have predicted the benefit computers and the internet and all of that has given companies. Heck Al Gore hadn't even invented the internet yet.
Alan Turing did better than 60 years ago.
-
I agree that about the Artic and the Polar caps-BUT-look at the weather in many other parts of the world such as our east coast, down south of us just for example. Closeing the Coquihalla highway for so long. I know here in the lower mainland this has been the worst winter for many years. The wind has not let up here in Vedder Crossing now for weeks.
I think you missed that whole weather vs climate discussion a few pages back, Sandy. Scroll up and re-read and you will see how a global warming trend can still result in local weather in some places being cooler.
-
Again, this is the type of predictive modeling that I do for a living. We try and figure out what possible extreme shocks might occur and how things will react but there is just no knowing. We do the best we can and if we get fairly accurate over the first couple years we pat ourselves on the back. Some big shocks might come that we listed as a possibility but to actually say they were thought to be anything more than one of a couple thousand possible paths would be completely inaccurate.
So I am left wondering why on earth anyone, if such inaccurate models lack all credibility, would pay you to do this work? Obviously, someone believes that such models, while far from perfect, are reasonable enough to guide current practices as there is a reasonable confidence that the predictions will be close enough so long as an unexpected shock does not throw it for a loop. No one is saying we can predict the future, but we can make predictions of what is likely to happen if nothing else changes, and if the prediction is unfavourable, it stands to reason that we should purposefully act differently to avoid the unfavourable future, rather than counting on an unexpected shock to help get us out of it.
It doesn't matter that the climate models might be prone to shocks to the system. It is certainly possible that we could use all of our knowledge of the climate systems, inputs, etc and make a reasonable (reliable) prediction that the global climate is going to warm only to have an asteroid impact in northern Canada result in a nuclear winter and plunge us into a new glaciation period. Hey, global warming was all a lot of hog wash wasn't it! Just because something unexpected might come along and reverse or minimize the projected increases in anthropogenic radiative forcing, doesn't mean we should count on that happening. We didn't realize how big of an impact that the depletion of the stratospheric Ozone layer would have on atmospheric cooling, but does that mean we were wrong about the impact that fossil fuel burning would have on increasing global temperature? No, we were just wrong about the impact that aerosol use would have on global cooling. Does that mean we should just keep depleting the Ozone layer so we can keep burning fossil fuels? We can keep your oil and gas companies in business but we may have to wear extra sunscreen when we go fishing.