Intended initially as a reply to a post by Lance, I had trouble commenting (yes even with Firefox Lance, the captcha wouldn’t display anything but lines) so this became a blog post instead.
There’s plenty of evidence to suggest there is human caused climate change. Why would you cherry pick the studies that suggest there isn’t? There are just too many reasons to KNOW that it’s happening to discount it without wondering what the heck is wrong with people who insist it doesn’t happen.
There’s a greenhouse effect. It’s a simple concept; it can be tested in a lab even. Certain types of atmospheres trap more solar radiation against the crust, ice, and oceans.
There are human generated greenhouse gases going into the air in record numbers. Like, duh? I don’t need to draw you a map, chart, or take pretty pictures of improperly placed weather stations for a smart person to realize this.
Thus we are warming the earth by human means. It’s pretty simple, and what’s that Occam’s Razor about the simplest explanation probably being the correct one ;-) Air pollution is so simple, you can see it. Unusual ice cap melting is also easy to see and read about.
Incredulous scientists are possibly using the scientific method, but it’s *really* hard (ie. impossible if you’re thinking) to discount what I’ve said above. The observations of climate change deniers are either wrong, or their methods are wrong. GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you can say my reasoning is Garbage instead, I’d like to see you try. Actually, I wouldn’t, because it’s not wrong, but knock yourself out since you apparently don’t believe it’s possible to waste energy to the point of self destruction.
And then if that wasn’t enough to put to rest the stupid so called “debate”, there’s the HUGE point that we have too much air pollution for what we should be making to live comfortably anyhow. We don’t NEED to have as much waste in our air as we’ve been making, and that is what the real point of “fighting climate change” should be about anyway. It’s not hard to stop being inefficient, and instead make products and food that waste so much less. For instance, we can make a flashlight that remains bright for 15 minutes, weighs less than a traditional one, and is powered by a few quick and easy squeezes of a hand crank. You don’t have to live in the dark when you make an energy efficient change.
I met someone yesterday who humourously (and from personal experience possibly) pointed out that a person could survive on the average (North) American’s daily waste (not their body waste, duh). And it might even be a step up for some people living on this planet. If that isn’t something to feel both honoured and shameful about, I don’t know what is.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Scott Tribe | 01-Apr-08 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
Lance is apparently one of those who feel its people’s and corporations right to make as much wealth as they possibly can, unfettered by environmental “regulations” or socialist “schemes”
I would have thought conservatives would have been all about conserving and conservation, but today’s batch is more concerned with not being impeded from making as much money as they can. oblivious to any other concern.
lance | 01-Apr-08 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
Scott is apparently a mind reader; able to garner a second party’s beliefs from thin air. Tell me, Scott, do you do make-up for the PM too? With all the assumptions in your comment, it’s no wonder you’re a climate-changer . . . everyone else is. Stick with the candy, it’s more your league.
I know about the comments at my place, Saskboy, it’s annoying, but no real loss. When I’ve time I’ll get around to that, but I’m neck deep in paid code so no time.
“…suggest…KNOW” - make up your mind. Are these anonymous studies intimating or are they showing. Are they examples of correlation? or impact? Do they “suggest” or do they prove? Do the pro-AGW studies “prove” but the anti-AGW studies only “suggest”?
“Certain types of atmospheres trap more solar radiation against the crust, ice, and oceans.” Not exactly sure what you mean here. atmosphere as in the Earths atmospheres or gases in the atmospheres? Trap meaning absorb or reflect?
Thus? Thus? That’s your proof, all of, ‘There is a greenhouse cycle. Humanity is putting gases into the atmosphere. Ergo we are causing global warming’?
Yeah, I’m convinced. Everyone, turn out the lights. Why this one post discounts all the growing glaciers, all the incorrect data, all the cooling of the oceans, and all the incorrect models.
Where do I sign up for my grant?
I agree with you regarding pollution. We need to reduce it. Fortunately CO2 isn’t pollution.
Cheers,
lance
stageleft | 01-Apr-08 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
I’m not so sure I can go as far as saying that humans have “caused” climate change. It is however only sensible, for all the reasons that you noted, to believe that we’re driving it faster,and to greater extremes, than would naturally occur.
I ain’t an old timer by any means but I spent more than 1/2 my life in the Canadian Arctic, and still spend a whole bunch of time there every year, and can tell you from personal observation that things are changing and changing fast — anybody reading the news article about the folks in Kuujuaq having to buy air conditioners for the first time in their lives should be able to figure that out.
We don’t “need” a lot of things that we think we do, but it’s inconvenient to live without them so because we are a lazy species we try and figure out a way to rationalize or justify away things that are inconvenient.
One of my favorite examples is the spaces that we live in, and I’m as guilty as any in this - most of us don’t need what we occupy, and therefore don’t need to consume the resources it takes to build or maintain them. I don’t “need” a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 bathrooms, a kitchen, a dining room, and a living room. It’s nice and convenient to have a bathroom of my own to use on those occasions when family or friends do stay over, but what I actually “need” is a bachelor suite - a 1 bedroom and a futon at the most…. but the space is convenient.
To off-set that I am as conscious as possible about how I use my space with regard to heating and lighting, as well as with purchasing and other lifestyle choices (public transit to work and around the city, pedal the bike in reasonable weather, TV’s and computer equipment on power bars that get shut off at night and during the day when I’m not home so they’re not “kept warm” while I’m away, etc…) but if I, and a great many others, actually put our money where our mouths are found in a lot of cases I wouldn’t have the address I do right now.
Crap…. now I’ve gone and depressed myself, I really should go see the property management people tomorrow and see about a smaller unit.
Saskboy | 01-Apr-08 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
Lance, You must have a funny idea about what “pollution” means if you think CO2 doesn’t count. Air Pollution is any matter thrown into the air indiscriminately, in an effort to throw it away as waste product. It’s indisputable that CO2 is an air pollutant when manufactured by non biological devices, and arguably also when exhaled by biological machines (us, cows, etc.). What could be argued is the extent with which it is harming us. There’s simply no argument that it’s mucking with what would naturally happen, because we add a lot more of it than there would be. We can change the level we put out, without sitting in the dark! Only the ignorant are suggesting that we have to reduce our quality of life to pollute less, and only meat heads argue that we ought to pollute more just to prove the pollution won’t hurt us!
“Trap meaning absorb or reflect?”
Great question! I’m not positive, but with water droplets, I’d have to have an educated guess that both take place. Since CO2 is transparent, I’d just guess that it’s absorbing more than reflecting back, but you have me wondering what about its chemical structure “traps” the energy in the light against the surface of the earth.
lance | 01-Apr-08 at 7:36 pm | Permalink
Wiki ‘GreenhouseEffect’
There is a nice graphic there that shows the absorption spectrum of the various greenhouse gases, total absorption, as well as incoming and outgoing spectrum intensities. They’re all lined up for easy comparing.
Of note is the minute size of the spectrum where CO2 absorbs energy in two of its three major peaks. Compared to the total absorption, CO2’s contribution is really not as relevant as most assume from the press.
Now, you’ll look at that graphic and say, “The main CO2 absorbtion peak looks like it encompasses the the full apex of the outgoing spectrum!” but it isn’t. Look at the scale on the bottom and top. Marked delineations of 0.2,1,10,70 micrometers . . . hardly a scaled graph at all.
The three main peaks of CO2 absorption is 0.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers. As a total, that’s about 8% of the entire spectrum . . . which oddly enough is almost what that wikipedia page states as CO2’s contribution in the constituent removal measurement table.
Canada’s supposed 2% share of 8% total absoption is 0.16%.
That’s what we’d contribute to stopping CO2 induced climate change if we _stopped_ emitting CO2. That science is very provable.
Now, as far as pollution goes, yes, I’m lax on my definition. To me it’s something that poisons the environment. CO2 doesn’t do that in anywhere close to the concentrations we’re expected to get to by even the most pessimistic of models.
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 01-Apr-08 at 8:07 pm | Permalink
Good points Stageleft.
And I didn’t intend to mean that we’re the ONLY cause of climate change, just that it’s undeniable that we are an important contributor. And even if we weren’t warming, we still need to change the same things for the air pollution (the stuff that Lance and SDA Kate acknowledge occasionally) anyway, so why the big huff about Global Warming on their part? It’s so obviously connected to the Denial Machine, it makes me concerned that we (humans) won’t collectively tackle this problem before it’s killed millions of us.
ScruffyDan | 01-Apr-08 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
@ Lance
“That’s your proof, all of, ‘There is a greenhouse cycle. Humanity is putting gases into the atmosphere. Ergo we are causing global warming’?”
If you really want a good summary of the scientific basis for climate change read this:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
The scientific basis behind climate change is more complicated than Saskboy let on, but he is basically right.
grf | 02-Apr-08 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
By the way, carbon dioxide is a directly harmful pollutant when it gets out of balance, harmful to human health and all sorts of other ecological puzzle pieces. There are impacts beyond climate change. Ocean acidification is the one that probably gets the most attention, but science really hasn’t had a chance to identify all the impacts. It’s not difficult to imagine that at some point breathing air that has a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide than we are used to might cause harm. There’s also the chemistry aspect, that carbon dioxide doesn’t necessarily stay carbon dioxide when added to the atmosphere. It can break down and its parts combine with other elements in the environment so that we have higher or lower concentrations of other gases, etc. than what we may be able to live with and remain healthy and unchanged.
TRM | 03-Apr-08 at 7:27 am | Permalink
The IPCC is a political body…. the scientist have long ago left for saner pastures… good luck with the global warming thing… they won’t get any of my money…..
Saskboy | 03-Apr-08 at 7:57 am | Permalink
Paranoia is a terrible thing.
ScruffyDan | 03-Apr-08 at 11:11 am | Permalink
I guess the National Academies of Science from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, thousands of peer-reviewed journals, and even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, are not scientists.
lance | 03-Apr-08 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
Actually, no scruffy, those are associations of/for scientists. (with the notable exception of “thousands of peer reviewed journals” (I think you mean papers, not the journals themselves, right?)
Scientists usually have names like “Joe” as opposed to “The Association….” it’s a close match though, so I understand your confusion.
I asked pertinent questions, you throw the IPCC at me. Someone complains that the UN is political rather than scientific and you throw associations out. Hello… [sarc]definition of politics.[/sarc]
Wasn’t it just today or yesterday that a Prog Blog was talking about the IPCC having to be political? Too understate the effects so that they could sell the evil americans?
(BTW, Saskboy, when are you going to fix the search function on Prog Blogs, eh? Heh, ask me about my comments will you? :) )
Can anyone here answer why it is worth ruining Canada’s economy to realize a maximum 0.16% reduction in GHG?
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 03-Apr-08 at 10:36 pm | Permalink
“Can anyone here answer why it is worth ruining Canada’s economy to realize a maximum 0.16% reduction in GHG?”
Because that’s not what the result would be from changing, AND the economy is ruining US!
(The PB.ca is being planned for a serious overhaul rewrite so bug fixes take a back seat. I think the Tag search still works instead?
We have a team of programmers working away as I speak, thank goodness, finally. I was a stopgap, and was always intended to be, as I don’t enjoy code writing, I just patch it up if I see something wrong or need a change).
ScruffyDan | 03-Apr-08 at 11:47 pm | Permalink
“Actually, no scruffy, those are associations of/for scientists. ”
And I assume you think that all of them have been overrun by pinko commies. After all that is the only way they could agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. Or, and I know this is a stretch, maybe the entire scientific community hasn’t overrun by pinko commies and maybe they are accurately representing the state of the science.
Saskboy | 04-Apr-08 at 12:05 am | Permalink
I too would be very surprised if hear the “National Academies of Science from Australia…” wasn’t mostly staffed by SCIENTISTS! Can you think of anyone else interested in that kind of tedious research, or career positions? If you’ve got some proof Lance, please link us up.
lance | 04-Apr-08 at 12:10 am | Permalink
No, I don’t think they’ve all been overrun by pinko commies, but I don’t have any delusions that _any_ organization speaks for all members or without motives that extend beyond their membership.
You’re right Saskboy, 0.16% wouldn’t be the result because Canada wouldn’t stop creating CO2. That’s the percentage of global reduction if Canada stopped producing CO2.
We do breathe after all. What’s the number now? 20% by 2020 or something? So our planned reductions are 20% of our 2% contribution of the 8% that CO2 adds to the GH effect) . . . 0.00032% of global GHG. . . .
We’re on the way, boys!
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 04-Apr-08 at 12:16 am | Permalink
You’re discounting the spin off effects of our innovation and leadership in the world. We’re doing the same dirty things as the dirtiest countries in the world, and throwing waste and opulence on top because we have the drinking water, and space for landfills to spare!
ScruffyDan | 04-Apr-08 at 12:38 am | Permalink
“I don’t have any delusions that any organization speaks for all members”
How about the vast majority? IS that to much of a stretch for you?
lance | 05-Apr-08 at 3:15 am | Permalink
scruffy, think about “vast majority” in relation to science and how the two can’t, by definition, mix.
Then think about how effortlessly you fell into the consensus trap.
The point is _think_. References, do not an argument make.
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 05-Apr-08 at 8:29 am | Permalink
No, but I independently came up with the argument (because it’s pretty simple and straightforward), and the IPCC agrees with me. The reason so much doubt exists is because there is an active campaign to confuse people with details that encourage laziness and waste for continued record profit for people who control energy resources.
grf | 05-Apr-08 at 8:35 am | Permalink
Further to what I was saying before, a new example:
“KOALAS and other leaf-eating animals face a bleak future, with new research showing eucalyptus leaves are becoming inedible because of climate change.
Australian National University science professor Bill Foley says: “What we’re seeing, essentially, is that the staple diet of these animals is being turned to leather. This is potentially a very significant development for the future of some marsupial populations. Life is set to become extremely difficult for these animals.”
James Cook University researcher Ivan Lawler found through experiments in greenhouses that increased levels of carbon dioxide reduced the levels of nitrogen and other nutrients in eucalyptus leaves and boosted tannins, a naturally occurring chemical toxin. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23487281-11949,00.html
ScruffyDan | 05-Apr-08 at 11:09 am | Permalink
“The point is think. References, do not an argument make.”
The evidence for climate change that is available to the casual person of interest, such as you lance (or me for that matter), is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless.
This is completely independent of the underlying reality of climate change or the evidence available to experts in the field.
That is why I place my trust in the ‘vast majority’ of the experts.