Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Some good points there c_canuk.

You have overlooked "hydro-electric".  Niagara Falls Generating Plant can produce more electricity than it currently does, but due to current Ontario Government direction it is not.  Solar and Wind Farms are not capable of generating enough power to meet Ontario's demands, and in some cases it is being questioned as to the fact that they may in fact be health hazards.  Why the Ontario Government has cut back on the generation of electricity through its nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams is quite puzzling to me.

I agree George, though on the Niagara falls point I have to say that, often, in winter, at night when nobody sees, they do maximize the diversion - and the falls become a trickle. It's a balancing act between viewing the falls (tourism) and the "extra" power you could get instead. In view of the current demand, the "extra" would not cover enough of the base load to justify loosing tourism.

I am puzzled by the same thing as you. It's not like Ontario and the great lakes are a heavy tectonic activity area where earthquakes would cause irresistible Tsunamis. The risks to ON nuclear plants (the risks are never zero) are quite minimal compared to many other places in the world where such plants operate. 

 

[a_majoor]

The question of "Green energy" in Ontario is pretty much directly addressed by following the money. The contracts signed by the Ontario Government pays wind farm operators $.135Kw/H, so competing sources of electrical energy need to be throttled back to create a "demand" for wind (solar gets similar treatment, but the numbers are all over the place due to the multitude of programs that seem to be out there). When the wind is blowing at peak energy times, steam from nuclear power plants gets vented and water dumped over the spillways of hydro plants to ensure that the "green" energy is being served up to the grid.

When you consider that non green baseline power was generaly priced at @ $.08Kw/H, and that "excess" power gets dumped to New York for $.04Kw/H (when the wind blows or the sun shines at off peak times), then you see the true scale and scope of the disaster the Liberals inflicted on Ontario and Ontario finances.

Just to rub salt in the wounds, to prevent the grid from crashing due to unexpected fluctuation in wind speed or solar output (clouds, rain), gas turbine generators need to be running on "hot idle" 24/7 to be able to pick up the slack from the "green" sources when they falter. One can only imagine the carbon emissions of 747 sized gas turbine generators idleing away day in and day out.

Bonus: Mark Styen has put out a book

Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann is entitled A Disgrace To The Profession. Here’s a review.“Steyn realized the word of a political pundit like himself can only travel so far in certain circles, and in a brilliant move, he has gathered a compendium of what other scientists have to say about Mann’s work.”

 

[Kilo_302]

Thucydides, here's an article with a link to a paper that addresses exactly the methodology that you seem to put much faith in.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.

Here's the actual paper:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

 

[GR66]

Thucydides, here's an article with a link to a paper that addresses exactly the methodology that you seem to put much faith in.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

Here's the actual paper:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

I claim no expert knowledge on climate science but feel that it's totally logical that human actions are having an effect on the climate.  Probably in many more ways than just by pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

However, saying that contrarians are wrong because they don't agree on what the alternative causes of climate change are just seems plain silly to me too.  The Climate and biosphere of our planet are extremely complex systems with interdependencies, feedbacks, causes and effects that we can barely even begin to understand. 

Focusing just on carbon emmissions as a cause of climate change in isolation from all the other potential factors (solar cycles, orbital positioning, changes in the magnetic field, biological feedbacks, vulcanism, the position of the continents, etc.) can only give a portion of the true picture in my mind. 

Unfortunately both sides in the "argument" (it's really not even a "debate" or "discussion" any more) have taken very dogmatic stands which don't seem to allow consideration of the other side. 

97% of Climate scientists may agree that human activity is resulting in an increase in carbon levels in the atmosphere.  That seems logical to me as well.  They may also agree that times of higher carbon in the past have corresponded with periods of global warming.  However...do 97% also claim to understand with certainty what caused periods of increased carbon in past warming periods when human activity wasn't the cause?  Can they claim with certainty that these same non-anthropomorphic causes are not currently amplifying our own impacts?  Is there agreement on what has caused past periods of warming and cooling that do not appear to be directly related to changes in atmospheric carbon levels?

I think there are a great many economic, social and environmental reasons for us to reduce our carbon emmissions (among many other things) and typically support implementing incentives to do so.  But I think that the Global Warming lobby has done everyone a disservice by painting this issue in such a black and white manner.

:2c:

 

[Kilo_302]

I claim no expert knowledge on climate science but feel that it's totally logical that human actions are having an effect on the climate.  Probably in many more ways than just by pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

However, saying that contrarians are wrong because they don't agree on what the alternative causes of climate change are just seems plain silly to me too.  The Climate and biosphere of our planet are extremely complex systems with interdependencies, feedbacks, causes and effects that we can barely even begin to understand. 

Focusing just on carbon emmissions as a cause of climate change in isolation from all the other potential factors (solar cycles, orbital positioning, changes in the magnetic field, biological feedbacks, vulcanism, the position of the continents, etc.) can only give a portion of the true picture in my mind. 

Unfortunately both sides in the "argument" (it's really not even a "debate" or "discussion" any more) have taken very dogmatic stands which don't seem to allow consideration of the other side. 

97% of Climate scientists may agree that human activity is resulting in an increase in carbon levels in the atmosphere.  That seems logical to me as well.  They may also agree that times of higher carbon in the past have corresponded with periods of global warming.  However...do 97% also claim to understand with certainty what caused periods of increased carbon in past warming periods when human activity wasn't the cause?  Can they claim with certainty that these same non-anthropomorphic causes are not currently amplifying our own impacts?  Is there agreement on what has caused past periods of warming and cooling that do not appear to be directly related to changes in atmospheric carbon levels?

I think there are a great many economic, social and environmental reasons for us to reduce our carbon emmissions (among many other things) and typically support implementing incentives to do so.  But I think that the Global Warming lobby has done everyone a disservice by painting this issue in such a black and white manner.

:2c:

Well what seems silly to you is backed in the paper at the link above with very real data.

Of course the "non-anthropomorphic causes" are amplifying the effects. Just like they dampen the effects. Climate change deniers are fond of using the recent relative lack of warming caused by increased volcanic activity and a decrease in solar activity as evidence the globe isn't warming. This works both ways. If you think you've hit on something here, forgive me if I sound frustrated. People have already thought of this

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thucydides, here's an article with a link to a paper that addresses exactly the methodology that you seem to put much faith in.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

Here's the actual paper:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

.....and all the global warming pundits say man and his productive environment are all to blame.

No mention of periodic norms, sun storms, climatic cycles, a constant and unending titling of the earth.

Nope, it's all man's fault for driving cars.

 

[Kilo_302]

.....and all the global warming pundits say man and his productive environment are all to blame.

No mention of periodic norms, sun storms, climatic cycles, a constant and unending titling of the earth.

Nope, it's all man's fault for driving cars.

Ok, so if you actually read any published paper that confirms anthropomorphic climate change is a reality, they all take the factors which you have listed above into account. In fact the VERY paper that I posted above addresses these factors because that the was the POINT of the paper.

When scientists first discovered the planet was warming, guess what? They wanted to find out why. So, using the scientific method they began ruling out probable causes, and taking into account factors which we know already affect climate. Things like solar activity, volcanic activity and natural climate cycles etc. This is simply how science works. To suggest that the world's scientists didn't think to account for the factors you've listed above just shows that you're not terribly scientifically literate.  If it was that simple, you'd have cracked the climate change case and we could all rest easy knowing recceguy turned the scientific world upside down and we actually have nothing to worry about.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

we know 

Stop there...........take some thalidomide, 'we know' it's safe.

 

[Kilo_302]

Stop there...........take some thalidomide, 'we know' it's safe.

So which is it? Are you saying we DON'T know that solar cycles affect climate? Or natural climate cycles don't affect climate  ;D? Or are you saying that science can never truly 100% be correct, because theories can never be proven only disproven? That last statement is actually accurate. However, taking it to the extreme and concluding that all theories we now accept as being accurate have an equal likelihood of someday being disproven shows that you also have some ground to cover in the scientific literacy department.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Well that was boring.....

 

[Kilo_302]

Well that was boring.....

No one ever said science was exciting. But getting into the labyrinthine depths of data and the actual method behind the collection of that data is crucial in the "debate" around climate change. It's precisely because it's boring that this "debate" even exists. So-called deniers have been rehashing the same arguments for decades now, despite them being debunked over and over again, and despite loads of new data that is published every year, begging the question, IS there a point where deniers will accept what mainstream scientists already have? I don't think there is.

But it's easy to throw around arguments based on cherry-picked data that sound plausible to the average person who isn't scientifically literate. This is part of the reason why our current government has muzzled Canadian scientists. Facts have a pesky way of making bad policy look bad.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

the reason why our current government has muzzled Canadian scientists. Facts have a pesky way of making bad policy look bad.

You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.

 

[George Wallace]

the reason why our current government has muzzled Canadian scientists. Facts have a pesky way of making bad policy look bad.

You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.

All I can say is: WOW!

That is indeed a 'tinfoil hat' theory.

 

[Kilo_302]

You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.

You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.

Well the fact that Canadian scientists are now more politically active then ever would suggest our current government's policies regarding what they can discuss in public are extremely alarming. I'm just repeating what many scientists are saying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/05/federal-election-2015-canada-science-cuts_n_7938638.html

https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/unions-representing-federal-scientists-protest-partisan-interference-1.3078584




Here's a fact. Our government has made resource extraction a priority in terms of economic policy. Resource extraction often has negative environmental impacts, low and behold the government as removed the protected status of thousands of lakes and streams in a bid to make resource extraction more feasible. They've also shut down numerous research projects that provide crucial data on the health of our fisheries, our inland bodies of water, agriculture etc. They have instructed scientists to NOT share their findings with the media in this regard. This is a government that does NOT like data. I fail to see how it's much of a stretch to suggest that restricting what data Canadians have access to is directly linked to policies they want to pursue.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So links from 3 groups who want more money for their causes is PROOF?

Frig,....I want you as the Ontario Premier because I can send you a ton more then 3 links from OPSEU stating I'm waaaaaaaaaay underpaid.
Read them and then sign this new contract I'll just happen to be holding...

 

[Kilo_302]

So links from 3 groups who want more money for their causes is PROOF?

Frig,....I want you as the Ontario Premier because I can send you a ton more then 3 links from OPSEU stating I'm waaaaaaaaaay underpaid.
Read them and then sign this new contract I'll just happen to be holding...

Your post underlines exactly the problems outlined in the articles above. Namely, the politicization of science. Science is not a political cause,  it's a tool that enables us to understand more about our world and ourselves with the hopes of improving our lot in life. I think you're doing Canadian scientists a disservice by lumping them in with every other political lobby group. I know many scientists, and while many do fall on the left side of the spectrum, many are centrist, and some are conservative (traditional fiscal Conservatives that is). They got into science because they're curious and want improve the society in which they live.

Of course they want more money, they care about their programs and they also understand their value to Canada. Our current government is the first the cut science at this level. It could be argued that the motivation behind these cuts is simply fiscal (even then, it would be terrible policy as innovation drives enterprise), but taken with the fact that scientists now must seek political approval like never before when releasing data, and government's publicly stated preference for policies that we already know are ineffective (mandatory minimum sentences would be one) it doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to understand that there is a definite political motivation behind the government's science policy. We have to ask ourselves, what government wants LESS data upon which to base public policy versus more? From there, it's easy to understand that the government who wants less data, wants this because that data interferes with policy.

The fact that you and I fall neatly into "left" and "right" positions on a question that has already been decided by science (and should be apolitical) just proves what Canadian scientists are now saying. The discussion should be, "we understand that climate change is occurring, now how do the right and left get together and figure out what to do? Do we use government policy, does the private sector have a greater role to play?" Now we could disagree on that all day long, and that would be a legitimate debate for sure.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Of course they want more money, they care about their programs and they also understand their value to Canada.

Trust me,.........that'll be in every document I hand over to the Govt. looking for more cash also.  Seriously??

 

[Kilo_302]

The fact that of everything I wrote above you're latching on to "yes, scientists require funding to do their jobs and yes, they want to prevent that funding from being cut" tells me you're not interested in actually having a discussion.

I don't know when understanding our fisheries, agriculture (the government just closed the Agriculture and Agri-food Lethbridge Research Centre's federal science library, and threw thousands of reports in the trash) our atmosphere etc became a "liberal" issue, or a political "cause" championed by left wing scientists. Shit, knowing more about these things helps our economy!

If you don't see the value of science to Canada and Canadians at large this isn't a discussion we can have.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And if you think trotting out clipping of people asking for more money makes your case, then you have nothing to offer.....

 

[Kilo_302]

And if you think trotting out clipping of people asking for more money makes your case, then you have nothing to offer.....

Well again, there have many protests by Canadian scientists around the "muzzling" of their community, so no, it's not just about funding.